PLAYBACK 22: Sennheiser HD 800 Headphones
The Art of Neutrality
Home Theater/Multichannel Audio
- PLAYBACK 22: Acoustic Energy Radiance 5.1-Channel Speaker System
- PLAYBACK 22: Marantz IS301 Wireless Dock for iPod
- PLAYBACK 22: Oppo Digital BDP-83 Blu-ray/Universal Player
TV / Displays
Two-Channel Audio
Source: Playback
| Products in this article: | HD 800 headphones |
.jpg)
(Updated 8-1-09) Sennheiser is a bit like its German compatriots BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Sennheiser doesn’t produce the largest number of headphones or the most exotic designs, but the headphones it makes consistently start with a strong engineering foundation. When such a company ventures into the top level of headphone pricing (in this case $1399), it draws attention.
Sennheiser’s attack on the “best headphones possible” category is called the HD 800. That bland nomenclature belies the effort Sennheiser has put into the design of the HD 800. This isn’t just a slightly better HD 650 (their previous top of the line and a reference for many reviewers). No, the HD 800 is a new concept of how a headphone should work.
With the HD 800, Sennheiser reexamined the way it makes headphones. The first fundamental change was shifting to a much larger driver in each earcup. A larger driver makes it possible to deliver low bass with less distortion. But Sennheiser’s design is aimed at reducing distortion across the frequency spectrum, quoted as 14hz – 44khz (-3dB) or 6hz – 51khz (-10dB).
The second major innovation is the orientation of the drivers vis-à-vis your ears. Since your ears detect the sense of space through timing differences as sound waves strike your ear from the front, Sennheiser has angled the HD 800 drivers to enhance the sense of space that the headphones provide.
Sennheiser has also paid attention to comfort by using special ear pad materials and by employing new light but very hard plastics. All in all this is an aggressive attempt to deliver the best.
Overview
Consider this headphone if: you like a smooth, neutral sound that is clear but not aggressive. These will be a good choice if you have previously owned high-end Sennheiser’s and like them but wish for more extension at the frequency extremes.
Look elsewhere if: you prefer a vivid sound with either rich bass or the ultimate in transparency.
Ratings (compared to similarly-priced headphones)
- Tonal Balance: 9
- Clarity: 9
- Dynamics: 8
- Comfort/Fit: 8
- Sensitivity: 7
- Value: 8
Sonic Character
I’m sure Sennheiser worked overtime to try to remove sonic character (as in, discernible colorations) from the HD 800s. As a result, it took me a while to get a handle on what they do. For example, at first I thought they were simply on the light side in terms of bass balance (which they are, slightly). But more listening revealed excellent deep bass and enough warmth to not feel deprived. Similarly, high frequencies are there in proper balance to the midrange, but you don’t initially get the sense of being directly coupled to the microphones that you do with some other top-of-the-line ‘phones. When you get frequency balance right, you often are less impressed initially than you are after a few weeks. That was certainly the case with the HD 800s. You realize over time that the love/hate frequency anomalies of some headphones are just that—anomalies. This is high praise indeed.
So, the HD 800s have a generally neutral frequency balance. They are also clear in the way that comes from being low distortion rather than tweaked to fake your ear into thinking it is hearing true clarity. So we're talking about excellence, but there are variations on excellence.Some people will love and others be left unmoved by the HD 800's character. For that, read on.
The bass of the HD 800s is slightly soft. You don't hear the air of plucked bass or the punch of kick drum to the degree that you would with live music. I can imagine certain listeners wanting a little more bass to make up for the inevitable lack of the visceral impact you get with live music but can’t get with headphones.
I would say that the HD 800s are more natural and less analytical than some top ‘phones. This is good thing, especially when combined with the excellent treble performance on offer here, which exhibits only very small errors. The HD 800s seem to have a small dip in the upper midrange which makes them slightly soft dynamically. The treble is extended, and is smoother than on many headphones. I'd say the treble of the HD 800s is very slightly warmer than is perfectly neutral. Despite that, on occasion, vocals can sound slightly "sharp" rather than completely pure (this may be the HD 800 revealing decoding errors, but I believe something else is going on as well).
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Comments
I'm still waiting for the delivery of my HD800.
However, your description the sonic character is reminiscent of the HD580, 600 and 650.
It is this very peculiar that these high-end headphones are more appreciated over 2 weeks of continuous use than at first impression.
My 580 was being fixed for a dead channel and had to use another high-end brand temporarily.
This same break-in experience occurred on recovering the 580.
Amazing and practically bewildering, yet unique.
Sennheiser is truly an elite and enigmatic manufacturer.
John Isq:
I do want to say that I think the HD 800 is a substantial step ahead of the 650s (which are in our lab; I can't comment on the other models). The high frequencies are lower in distortion and better balanced. The low frequencies go deeper and the bass overall is more articulate. Whether these noticeable improvements are worth the extra cash is, of course, something for you to decide. The 800s don't sound radically different than the 650s, so they are worth the step up only if you like the 650s but would love to address a few issues with extension, transparency and treble balance.
Again, could you be more specific? Low frequency articulation below 40Hz isn't terribly musically relevant, and there's a lot to say re the high treble.
Thanks. Ern
"Eats shoots and leaves" Dept: I re-wrote my statement about the bass to eliminate the confusion. Point is not that deep bass is more articulate on the HD 800s than on the 650s, but that bass overall is more articulate on the 800s. This is also a small difference.
There is a greater difference in the high frequencies between the HD 800s and the HD 650s. First, the HD 800s simply seem brighter. Since I'd say the 650s are on the dark side that isn't a bad thing, though there is room in the world for preferences (especially since so many popular recordings seem to be mixed on the hot side). What I don't think is arguable is that sometimes the 800s reveal an instrument where you can't really hear the instrument completely on the 650s. For example, on Annie Lennox' version of Ladies of the Canyon there is a cymbal in the background. On the 650s you might think it is a rim shot, but the 800s make it clear that it is a cymbal. All of this suggests to me that the 800s have flatter HF response.
After reading this review i think my ideas of headphones are confirmed:
They are the best and most economical way to reach sonic nirvana but things are not so simple.
My first real HiFi cans were Sony MDR-CD750 (1993) , then I upgraded to a pair of CD1000 (1994) both closed models, in a travel to New York in 2000 I was decided to buy the Sennheiser HD600 but I was unnimpressed by their lightweight bass and restricted treble and finally I chose a Sony MDR-CD1700 (great phone).
In 2007 purely guided by an Stereophile review I bought in Germany a pair of AKG-701 these phones were widely advertised as the best thing on Earth since sliced bread, but I found them extremely neutral (lifeless would be a better description).
Later I tried Beyerdynamic DT-990 a complete waste of money ...with a "gross" unsubtle sound...., until now NO headphone I had owned surpassed the CD-1700, (surely a proud cousin of Sony MDR-CD3000 and similars).
Really is a matter of physics: no open can is able to reproduce the bass that modern rock/electronic/pop music demands, a closed is mandatory for this.
Clearly you have to own different types of cans for different music tastes and no matter how hard Sennheiser and AKG tried they are allways more suitable for soft and classic recordings.
Probably the HD-800 are extremely good units but now my hopes goes towards the Denon AH-D7000 that really only have received praise everywhere.
PS:
Headphone amps I am using are Musical Fidelity X-CAN V2 and Musical Fidelity X-CAN V3 + X-PSU V3.
Lets just get it on the table: these headphones easily cost 4x more than competitors's top of the line headphones. There's simply no way they can even come close to presenting a meaningful enough boost in sound quality or tonality to justify that kind of price increase. The only people that would have a remote hope of hearing any of the "improvements" are children whose ear drums still have maximum elasticity- but how many children have $1400 to spend on headphones?
So I think the people claiming that these headphones were "mind changing ear-orgasms" compared to something like the AKG 702's are just drinking the audiophile voodoo koolaid. These headphones aren't for the sound quality, they're just meant to be a status symbol (like the gold plated Motorola RAZR phone that costs a few thousand).
Headphones are the most subjective mode of listening to music. Your opinion (and that is all it is) confirms this, as it indicates your preference for bright sounding cans. The Xcan is hardly "state of the art" when it comes to getting the most from a headphone. I would say that the OP's use of the Woo 2 would better represent the 800s capabilities.
Maybe with BT 3.0 or HDMI 2.x we'll be able to have a reference audio headset that is wireless.
I love the sound and comfort (high marks on comfort!) of my HD600's but I'd be willing to pay a lot more if they were wireless (but still had excellent audio - I won't be willing to downgrade my sound quality for wireless).
Maybe with BT 3.0 or HDMI 2.x we'll be able to have a reference audio headset that is wireless.
I love the sound and comfort (high marks on comfort!) of my HD600's but I'd be willing to pay a lot more if they were wireless (but still had excellent audio - I won't be willing to downgrade my sound quality for wireless).
I liked the review, but I would have preferred that it include comparisons to specific headphone alternatives.
For example, the Grado line of headphones is both well-respected and comparably priced. I'm not asking you to say which is "better". Rather, to use the Grado line as a reference point. Is there more bass in the Grado PS-1000 Pro (at $1,700, it's in the same range)? How does their reproduction of transients compare? That's what I like to see in a review. Otherwise, we have no frame of reference, other than past reviews from the reviewer.
Chartguy:
We've asked Grado for a pair of PS-1000s, which I don't believe are in production yet, but they have denied our request. We also have the Ultrasone Edition 8's and Stax SR-007s on the way.
The frame of reference is intended to be the sound of live music. That is a logical though difficult standard. But it doesn't help you with whether these are the best headphones for your hard-earned $1400. We're working on the comparative piece.
I don't mean to be harsh, but this is what I'd call a useless review. Many of Tom Martin's statements are contradictory (e.g. reagrding bass response). He harps on the fact that headphones cannot replace speakers, which has nothing to do with reviewing this product. (Yes Tom, I prefer speakers too. How are these as headphones?)
Tom says the HD 800s lack "vividness" - a value that is never described in any way, except to say that some people would call it distortion. With no better definition, my guess is that he's referring to an over-emphasis of high frequencies (common in headphones) leading to an impression of increased detail. That can be helpful in mixing or mastering, but it is an anathema to good listening. Tom seems to want this - what I call 'sizzle' - to compensate for headphones not being speakers. ????
"So, the HD 800s have a neutral frequency balance". They "seem more natural and less analytical than soke top 'phones". They have "a smooth, neutral sound that is clear but not aggressive." And somehow all of this is bad? Clearly, Tom prefers some other phones in this price-range. Why aren't any mentioned? How about some basis for comparison? Are Staxx 'phones more vivid? Does Grado have better bass?
I can't completely contain my sarcasm about how Tom 'warmed up' to the HD 800s "after a few weeks". Were they broken in before evaluation, or staright out of the box? Do speakers sound 'right' without significant break-in? Why would headphones? I suggest that Tom was simply hearing mechanical break in, which usually results in richer bass and a more neutral presenmtation overall. What I find hard to believe is that an experienced reviewr - or even listener - would not take that into account.
And after al is said and done, we still don't know what Tom really thinks. He has "high praise indeed" for these 'phones... but doesn't seem to like them!
Art:
I'll try to address at least some of the issues you raise.
First, I don't think my bass comments are contradictory. Here's why. The bass balance is on the light side in the mid-bass, though this is a small deviation. Hence the comment that there is enough warmth (in the mid-bass) to not feel deprived. This might normally signal a roll-off, but in the case of the HD 800s, that isn't the case; their deep bass is pretty solid.
The specific point about the HD 800s and speakers is not about them replacing speakers, it is about their spatial presentation compared with live music. The reference to speakers ("they don’t turn headphones into speakers or live performers") is there because that's the claim Sennheiser makes and because speakers can give a reasonable VR imitation of live music's spatial elements. Since representing the spatial qualities of live music was a design goal of the HD 800s, this seems to me to be a completely legitmate element of evaluation.
Vivid is an English word, which has a known definition: lifelike, clear, fresh, striking, intense; that's what I meant. Vividness is a holistic sense that the music is dynamic, clear and full of life. Sorry for the confusion on that. Vividness is not the high frequency emphasis you propose. I used the term because some qualities don't reduce easily to a single analytical variable.
By way of further clarification, all transducers have colorations (distortions). The HD 800s seem primarily to have subtractive colorations (de-emphasizing certain frequency bands, for example). Such distortions have the virtue of calling less attention to themselves; my point was that the price is a certain loss of vividness or sense of the real.
I did break in the HD 800s. But, I find that the subtle qualities of some products take a while to discern. A compounding factor is that you can't hear a phenomenon until you play music that triggers the phenomenon -- this naturally takes time if a product has small distortions. I think this is primarily an issue of learning, not break-in, because in my early listening I noted characteristics that remained true. I think readers will want to know that some of my observations are about subtle things, which is to say that the virtues and vices of the HD 800s don't hit you over the head. Many readers have asked us to distinguish between big and small differences; there are logical reasons to believe this is hard to do, but I want to put my comments in context to address this request as best I can.
I believe my job as a reviewer is to explain the product in the context of what it is intended to do. My personal opinion really doesn't matter. You aren't me, and your taste may be different. The HD 800s do a number of things which are praise-worthy. They have flaws, too (like every product). If liking them requires me to avoid describing the flaws, then liking them gets in the way of doing my job.
Hope that helps.
This is the typical case of a headphone reveiw by somebody who doesn't like headphones in general. They are a necessary evil to use when you can't make much noise, etc.
This review is just full of contradictions!
Sorry Tom, but your review stinks.
Sorry Tom, but your review stinks.
Tom, you mention, "Even so, the HD 800s are so good that I prefer them to 90% of the headphones I’ve heard." Which headphones are in the top 10% and how do the prices compare?
It may help if the reviewer stated the type and performer of music listened to, or if it was too esoteric for mere mortals to comprehend, a line like: Bossgorsky's Symphony in Z major, sounded dull and flat on X headphones but the HD 800 vividly brought to life, the audience shifting restlessly in the 4th row of the symphony hall. Unfortunately the reviewer is a corporate wheel and lacks the vision to state it like it is: The damm headphones are not worth $1400, hell they may not be worth 300.
YoMama:
Did you read page 2 of the review, where I supply a detailed musical example (Eva Cassidy in this case)? That may help. As for other music, here are examples to give you an idea of the range of styles used:
Paganni
Pink Martini
White Stripes
Schubert
Annie Lennox
Beethoven
Tim Ries
Rodrigo & Gabriela
Decembrists
Alison Krauss
Jacintha
Mark Knopfler
Kate Rusby
Sibelius
Art Pepper
Shelley Manne
Neil Young
John Lennon
Bruckner
Alison Brown
Your review opens more questions than it answers to me!
You haven´t stated what amps you used nor what formats you listened to.
If you only used RBCD to evaluate a possible high end product you have basically said nothing of any interest to me.
It is quite annoying with reviewers of real HI FI potential products who are either only listening to pop music and or RBCD only .
Any conclusions you arrive are by and large totally invalid and irrelevant if you are actually setting out to judge the actual sound quality of the product under review!
To take just one example sibelius on RBCD and Siberlius on a well produced SACD or hi rez download are two /three very diffent things !
and to judge any decent product with RBCD only simply shows the reviewrs own ignorance as to what High End and true HI FI can actuallly be!
Chris: the review states clearly (be sure to read page 2 of the review) that I primarily used the Luxman P200 and PS Audio GCHA amps. As mentioned above, I also tried the Benchmark DAC 1 Pre and Head Direct HA-1 amps. The Luxman and PS Audio amps worked the best, so I did most of my listening with them.
I used, as mentioned above, Red Book CD and SACD played via the Esoteric DV-60. When playing Red Book, I used the Estoreric's PCM>DSD conversion. SACD was of course played in DSD mode. I also used the Lector CDP-7 and Benchmark DAC 1 Pre for D/A. I hope to try the Meridan 808 soon, since I've tried that with my speaker-based system and it is quite special.
Red Book CDs are going to be used with headphones for almost all listeners, so that has to be part of the mix. Red Book can come very close to SACD (or even exceed SACD) with good recordings and well-designed D/A. I think the last few years have shown that much of what we've blamed on Red Book CD are really D/A (and A/D) issues. There is a question in reviews though about whether using these (often expensive) D/A solutions is valid for reporting on less expensive products. Will a $6k or $10k or $15k D/A system really be used with $1400 headphones? My solution is to primarily use the big iron, but also try more conventional and possibly representative source components.
I also provide a list above of the variety of source material (styles) used.
Ok, that clarifies some things.
But I still maintain that SACD is in every respect that really counts. A MUCH BETTER FORMAT ,maybe not the best,DXD seems to be the best there is in digital for now!
To state that RBCD can exceed SACD as a format is simply NOT TRUE, or to put another way, it is a lie!
There is NO WAY you can make a lower resolution format sound better than a higher resolution one PERIOD!
You can´t get more than a pint out of a pint botte and that is a fact!
It may sound better to YOU on a given recording and system .
But it can never give you better or more resoultion than the format itself is capable of delivering!
The ever repeated plain lie that RBCD is good enough for real ie acoustic large scale symphonic music and demanding material with lots of dynamic range and content over the entire frequency spectrum and above what most of us can actually hear remains a lie, irrespective of how many times you or anyone else repeats it!
You are right that RBCD has been improved lately but it is still only WITHIN THE LIMITS PROVIDED BY the format 16/44,1 khz bitrate and sampling !
Without getting to far into number crunching and bits involved , use your ears and listen to any of these recent releases recorded in either DXD and downsampled to SACD or recorded in DSD .
Channel Classic´s recent Mahler 4th is a very good example of a recording that shows DSD is CLEARLY superior to RBCD!
Another disc, also DSD recorded that is simply State Of The Art is Mariinsky´s Shostakovich´s 1 and 15 th symphonies
For DXD sourced material listen to either 2L ´s Flute Mystery available both as an SACD and Blu ray disc in one package,or Ondine´s Suk Asrael symphony.
If you or anyone else here won´t hear that the SACD layers of these discs are CLEARLY BETTER AND MORE RESOLVED THAN THE RBCD LAYER I think you need to go to a live concert and have your ears re-calibrated and or cleaned out!
SACD is a better format, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, you can't really listen to a format in isolation. That matters for some people, for several reasons.
To see one element of this, let me clarify my point about Red Book exceeding SACD performance. The idea, discussed many times in the past, is that a great recording distributed in Red Book format and played with a superb Red Book D/A can outperform a less good SACD recording played back on average SACD D/A. This may seem obvious, but in the real world it is an important idea. What matters is the complete fidelity of the recording and reproducing chain, not simply one element of it. This is the case in which Red Book can outperform SACD.
Note that the above situation matters not only because logically it shows why not all SACDs sound better, but because it reveals the significance of the market for D/A technology. To be less abstract, if SACD D/A is frozen in time and Red Book D/A is not (roughly the case today), then it could be that RBCD D/A at some point practically outperforms SACD D/A. Meridian's apodising filter in the 808, which corrects some errors in the recording, is perhaps the best example of how this may happen.
In practice, there a plenty of imperfect SACD recordings and lots of less than stellar SACD D/A converters (the same holds for RBCD). So, in practice, Red Book is far from always inferior. The converse of this idea is that one must be careful with statements about Red Book CD's intrinsic qualities if your comparisons don't use one of the top D/A converters. Even with dual-layer discs, one can't perform a listening test without D/A conversion, so it is essentially impossible to comment empirically strictly on format differences.
Finally, for this discussion of headphones, there is the really big issue of very little software being available in SACD format. For most people, the music is what matters, and so the notion that SACD might be theoretically better is interesting at best. For testing purposes, we need to use signals that reveal the performance of the equipment under test. That almost necessitates the use of Red Book material. And, since such material is likely to be used by HD 800 listeners, it seems pretty relevant even if the tester doesn't need the musical examples from Red Book.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like higher-res formats as much as the next guy would. But right now a lot can be done without them. I'm pretty sure that my findings on the HD800s weren't caused by the use of 90% Red Book CD material, but it is possible. So, I'll keep listening to SACD and try the Meridian 808 to see if that changes my view.
Hello there Tom ,
I know it is better , I have heard DSD at master level.
Big issue of little software????
Where have you been looking???
And what kind of music are you listening to?
Ever visited SA-CD .net??
There are some 4000-6000 SACDs released so far and they are still being released on an almost daily basis!!!
Mind you, most of the releases are , excuse my saying so, REAL MUSIC ACOUSTIC SYMPHONIC MUSIC !!
The only music that is relevant if we are talking HI FI and HI REZ.
Electronically amplified instruments like electric guitars and such are simply totally irrelevant in any discussion of HIGH END sound .
And regarding the sound quality of many ,but not all of my SACDs, they are often very close to what I have heard at different recording sessions straight from the masters.
No RBCD has even ever come close to sounding like the real thing ie an orchestra playing live music in a good hall
But let me ask you another question more related to your review of the HD 800 headphones.
You say that you prefer them to 90 % of other headphones .
Which ones do you prefer over the HD 800s?
And for what reasons?
I myself have the old 650 s but much prefer Grado´s GS 1000 i Statement over the 650´s.
I have not yet heard the 800s ,but after your review I will listen to them asap.
On appropriate classical acoustic material of course . SACD or HI REZ files, no RBCDs .
ps .the following link may provide you with some interesting reading on the subject of RBCD and 41khz sampling http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm
All the best Chris
Chrille: You have a D/A converter in your head?
Well here we go again..., small, possibly significant, improvements accompanied by a rather large, possibly unjustified, jump in price. I am a classical recording engineer and have more occasions, than I want to talk about, to use headphones while out on location. As a result I own just about one of anything made, and If I don't have it one of my friends or colleagues does. My delimma is more whether to use open, or closed backed model depending on isolation needs, and the fact that open phones tend to have less distortion. The most interesting thing to me about the HD800 is the offset drivers, a feature played to the hilt by Ultrasome and surprisingly not by Sennheiser who have offered something similar in other models ( HD595, HD555, HD515 and the new HD380) for quite some time, listed in the specs as "EAR". Frankly I don't know why Sennheiser never offered this feature in their higher end models (580, 600, 650 etc)...., until now?
While I don't see how, Ultrasome claims a patent on this technique even though Sennheiser was doing it way before I ever heard of Ultrasome which, by the way, I was not impressed with. I never jump on these new things the moment they appear and for instance grabbed a pair of HD600s (great phones) a few years back for $175, practically new from an unhappy owner. Preferably, and when ever possible, I will set up a temporary control room and use speakers when on location as that is the perspective I am aiming to please. However learning to use phones has been interesting and I find as Tom did that the offset driver angle does little to simulate speakers but does make better use of the pinae part of the ear. SPL, another German company, has addressed this issue with a couple of headphone amps (Phonitor and 2 Control) that crossfeeds a little from each opposite channel to get closer to a speaker like perspective. The premier piece (The Phonitor) is priced at $2200 and will work with any set of phones. So, I say that if simulating speakers is a criterion my money goes to a crossfeeding headphone amp not a $1400 pair of headphones.
Many people have said that the HD800 can be a cameleon when used with different headphone amps, and that it needs a good headphone amp to sound it's best. Could you let us know what you were listeing through and if you tried different amps?
As I mentioned in the article, I primarily used the Luxman P200 (which works well with many 'phones and was my favorite for the HD800s until the Woo WA22 arrived) and PS Audio GCHA headphone amps. I also used the Head Direct EF1 and Benchmark DAC1 Pre. Sources were the Esoteric DV-60 (in PCM>DSD mode or just DSD for SACD), Lector CDP-7 (and Benchmark DAC Pre D/A when that amp was used).
I would agree that amps matter with the HD 800s (and many other headphones). So do D/A converters (at least a big a factor as amps in the high frequencies). One thing that indicates is that the HD 800s are neutral enough to be quite revealing of small differences.
Most of the character I describe held up across the amps that I did use, with the exception of my point about vividness. But there could be a consistent interaction with these amps and the HD 800s that led me to believe I was describing the headphones when in fact I was describing a characteristic of these amps.
First of all, the reviewer paired them with amps that don't do well with the HD800. Neither the Luxman P-200 or PS Audio GCHA do the HD800 any justice whatsoever. Obviously Sennheiser expects you to use the headphones in their standard single ended configuration. However you will not hear what these incredible headphones are capable of until you use a balanced (XLR) cable with a balanced headphone amp. You can either reterminate the stock cable with XLR or you can get a high-end aftermarket cable from a company such as APureSound. The HD800 do very well with some high-end tube amps such as the Ray Samuels Audio B-52, Donald North Audio Sonett, and Woo Audio WA22. The best balanced solid state headphone amp I've heard them with is the Audio-gd Phoenix which runs in Class A.
Years ago I had a couple of Sennheiser HD-414 headphones that were VERY HIGHLY rated for its day... since they were of the then "new" Open-Air design, and they were truly "natural" when compared against the tipical closed designs of those years.
Then I had the "IDEA!" that if the 414 was good... Then the 424X SHOULD be BETTER... 'cause it was the "Top-of-the-Line" model.
My surprise was that the costlier model (over twice the price) was only slightly (very slightly) more extended in low frecuency range, but NOT worth the additional money.($109 US Dollars for the 424x vs. $44 for the 414 at a discount store in 1979... probably several times those amounts in today's dollars). AND the costlier model was quite less comfortable because Sennheiser went to use much larger diameter plastic ear pieces, in a (mostly) futile attempt to achieve a flat-baffle design that (should) be reaching lower bass frecuencies... (the driver units were, as a matter of fact, VERY similar, almost identical to those used in the lower price model).
Simply put, I found that in a design series, when a manufacturer reaches a certain level of success, and tries to "upgrade" that model, they find that it is VERY difficult to achieve a significant change (in the correct direction, that is); so that the higher, newer model doesn't sound that much better at all... and sometimes, the costlier model really sounds somewhat inferior!
Since I learned that lesson, I try to compare the several model lineup, and then select the best price/performance model, and USUALLY it is NOT the most expensive one. What happens is that the designer and manufacturer "strikes" a good balance of characteristics, and then tries to better that model BUT if the former model is well balanced, then the "new" or "improved" model introduces new bugs or problems that were minor or slight in the previous model. In most cases, the more expensive model is NOT better than the previous one, but the "perceived" performance gains are just because the reviewers must justify the price increase believing that price alone must produce abetter performance. In a very few cases, it does. Most of the time, the overpriced "top-of-the-line" models are just OVERPRICED.
Over the years I've owned maybe 14 or 15 models of headphones, and 6 different models of in-canal earphones too, and have asked quite a few people, (musicians, Recording Engineers, a couple of record producers, and a lot of audiophile friends) what were their impressions, and have found that this "rule" seems to apply most of the time.
Maybe YoMama's comment ("The damm headphones are not worth $1400, hell they may not be worth 300...) was too shrill, but it highlights my point that too many products in Today´s High-End are way too overpriced. I can imagine that $1,400 can purchase a lot of other good stuff, and find too difficult to justify that much amount spent on a headphone, even using the very best quality reasonable materials. (By the way, my headphone amp is a DIY design based on MosFets and Tube output, which allows me to modify impedance and coupling).
Another matter that has to be considered is the very important aspect of Headphone-Amplifier electrical matching, which means that the impedance characteristics of the headphone need to be considered to conduct a proper listening. Some headphones are of relatively low impedance and need an amplifier stage that supplies enough current, some are higher in impedance and NEED more voltage than current. The posted 300 ohm impedance is a little on the high side, so it should not demand much current, but some headphone output stages wil not have enough voltage and output drive to fully bring them "alive". When wiring a Recording Studio and an Auditorium years ago, we found that the best arrangement was to feed quite a few Sennheiser 600 ohm headphones all of them in Parallel, DIRECTLY connected to the power amp!, so that they received enought voltage and had a very good damping factor at he same time... I believe the Power Amp was a Crown D-150 (80 wpc continuous). Everybody agreed they sounded way better than when they were plugged into the preamp headphone or the mixing board jacks, where they lacked bass and "punch" and sounded "lifeless" and thin.
Some people just don't like the 'environment' presented to you with headphones (Dolby's "Headphones" settings - on some amps - try to correct that and move the sound from 'middle of my head' to "in front", but it doesn't do well). If so, try some binaural recordings. I am sure the HD800s will blow you away. I have a pair of HD600 which I now need to trade up, damn! <grin> But I remember one incident when I pulled them out of my backpack and passed them to this teenager girl who had on her iPod. She said one thing, "It's so real, like the singer is HERE!" Nuff said.
Some of you have commented on the point I make about the way the HD 800s present a spatial image. While you are welcome to be unhappy with my findings and chalk them up to "not liking headphones" or some such imaginative idea, others will be reading Sennheiser's claims and they deserve to know how the HD 800 delivers on them.
Here is what Sennheiser says:
"Sound waves channeled to our ears at a realistic angle ensure a sound as natural as the one generated by correctly positioned loudspeaker systems. Thanks to an innovative design, the HD 800 meets this requirement."
I simply did not find that claim to be true. As I said, that doesn't make the HD 800 a bad headphone because most other headphones (I certainly haven't heard them all) do not meet this objective either.
Other Headphones
Some of you have asked about other headphones that are worth comparing to the HD 800s. Here are writeups of a few worthy competitors:
Ultrasone Edition 8 (First Listen)
Denon AH-D5000 (Playback Review) -- these are very close relatives of the AH-D7000 mentioned above (which I haven't heard, but understand are debatably better)
Live music is vivid?These headphones are not?? These headphones reproduce recorded music, not live music. So why the convoluted comparisons? Please, Sir, stop writing audio reviews; if may not be your thing. If you want to master the art of reviewing audio gear, then maybe you should consider attending a Harry Pearson master class or something of that nature.
Infotrad:
Most of us working on The Absolute Sound, Hi Fi+, AVGuide and Playback don't think of the reference to live music as convoluted. It may be worth understanding why to help make sense of some of these comments.
As it happens, I've been to the Harry Pearson master class. Ironically enough, it starts with "the absolute sound refers to the sound of unamplfied music played in a real acoustic space. The primary reference we have for judging the quality of equipment we review is the sound of live music, that is, the absolute sound."
Harry's idea was to start with the end in mind. He claimed that we want music reproduction systems to come as close as possible to re-creating the sense of the live musical event. Since instruments in acoustic spaces, particularly unamplified instruments, have defined (and importantly for the reviewer, learnable) sounds they form the fundamental reference for determining if components are doing their job. This approach isn't without its difficulties, but most if not all other approaches have even more problems because they lack a clear and/or meaningful reference.
This is a very high standard to meet (Harry has said many times that we won't ever get there), and my apologies if this high standard makes the HD 800s seem less good than they really are. Sennheiser makes claims for the HD 800s (and to some degree prices them) as the ultimate headphone, so using this standard seemed particularly appropriate here.
Hope that is useful.
This is precisely an example of how you stray in your review, i.e., when you state that "so using this standard seemed particularly appropriate here." Since live music exists whole unto itself, it cannot be judged other than on its own merits, contrary to transducers, which should be compared with other tranducers regarding their attainment of the absolute sound, i.e., live music. However, it think that it takes incredibly sharp reviewing skills to do an informative review that compares a piece of audio equipment to live music, and that it would be safer and less bewildering for the reader to be presented with a review that compres a piece of audio equipment with other audio equipment, while keeping the absolute sound in the back of one's mind, ready to be used when need, as it where, such as to add some "colour" to a description, etc. Otherwise, by using live music as a reference, every single peice of equipment could be easily assessed in a revirw as being flawed or even terribly flawed, depending on the reviewer and how much weight he gives to live music as a reference. Therefore, I would use other gear to compare with...it's as simple as that in my view.
This is precisely an example of how you stray in your review, i.e., when you state that "so using this standard seemed particularly appropriate here." Since live music exists whole unto itself, it cannot be judged other than on its own merits, contrary to transducers, which should be compared with other tranducers regarding their attainment of the absolute sound, i.e., live music. However, it think that it takes incredibly sharp reviewing skills to do an informative review that compares a piece of audio equipment to live music, and that it would be safer and less bewildering for the reader to be presented with a review that compres a piece of audio equipment with other audio equipment, while keeping the absolute sound in the back of one's mind, ready to be used when need, as it where, such as to add some "colour" to a description, etc. Otherwise, by using live music as a reference, every single peice of equipment could be easily assessed in a revirw as being flawed or even terribly flawed, depending on the reviewer and how much weight he gives to live music as a reference. Therefore, I would use other gear to compare with...it's as simple as that in my view.
I understand the desire to have comparative information on, say, headphone vs. headphone. Try my Ultrasone preview listed above. In it I briefly compare the Edition 8s to the HD 800s. That may help.
The purpose of the reference to live music is to explain where/how a piece of equipment is flawed or accurate and to articulate the magnitude of those flaws relative to a meaningful standard. We aren't judging the music, we are judging the ability of the equipment (and recording of necessity) to create a virtual reality facsimile of the music (the standard). Ideally, we would add, then, a comparison of these flaws and accuracies between two pieces of equipment. I acknowledge that such comparisons are missing in this review, and as I said, we're working on it. As as start, I provide a comparison with the Sennheiser HD 650s above, and with the Ultrasones in the preview mentioned. The permutations of such comparisons get a bit daunting, but something in that direction would be understandably useful.
Perhaps it is obvious, but one really can't simply compare pieces of equipment. For example, if I say that headphone X has more mid-bass than headphone Y, it isn't useful because you don't know if headphone Y is deficient, accurate, or overpowering in the midbass relative to the sound of live music (unless you own headphone Y). I think it is safe to say the comparison with live music, while valid, isn't perfectly useful either.
Tom,
I'm interested in your review but I am impressed with several facets of the review and the public reaction:
First, the review did leave me a little bewildered as to "how you felt" about these. Part of why we read reviews is to get a sense as to what someone feels or how they feel about a certain product. A little more commitment, since quite a bit is being asked by our Deutsche friends ($1400), as to whether or not the progress from a 650 is sufficient to "sell the kids" or not, would seem to be part of your job.
The second thing that I noticed is the reaction - while many are polite in their question and comments some are either very passionate or recently released from one of "those" institutions. But because of the challenges to your interview you did yourself and AVguide a great service. You clarified some of the murky statements, provided additional information to help articulate your position and you did so in a civil manner.
Thanks for the review - it was helpful and I think I'll go forward and grab a pair of 650's - you helped...
Rip:
Sorry about any confusion re: how I feel about the HD 800s. I tried to summarize with "This gets me to the level of really, really liking the HD 800s. The HD 800s are so good that I could easily live with them over the long haul." I think my detailed critique served more to indicate that I wasn't over the top blown away by the HD 800s. I was impressed with the HD 800s, but I wasn't blown away because the HD 800s are one of several very good headphones available. Each has pros and cons. In that context, the intent of the detailed critique was actually to recognize that different listeners have different preferences and to give them a sense of whether the HD 800s would be their cup of tea. Unfortunately, any list of pros and cons can serve to dampen enthusiasm for purchase. That isn't my intent, but at the same time, my job isn't to sell HD 800s.
On the issue of whether to sell the kids to move from the 650s to the 800s, my philosophy remains in (sad) defiance of the wishes of many, in that it is hard to comment on what things are worth to other people. As I've said here before, I'm not you, and chances are we don't face the same financial picture. But, if you want my personal view, I'd move from the 650s to the 800s in a heartbeat. I'd also get on the pre-order list for the Woo WA22 with maximum tube complement and get a Berkeley or Meridan minimum phase/apodising DAC. Note, though, that my core loudspeaker-based system uses four rather than two monoblock mbl 9008 A amps at an extra cost of $50k for bi-amping. Clearly, I'm not a guy who is unwilling to pay for "small" improvements.
I want to second your point that the dialog here is helpful to the reviewing process. A tip of my hat in appreciation to the AVGuide users who commented.
Thanks for the review Tom, I think you did a good job explaining the traits of the headphone. It's funny that people should say that you don't like headphones when you discuss the HD800s shortcoming in spatial presentation. I think that the headphone lovers out there (which I include myself) simply expect that you can't get the same kind of in front of you presentation that you get with speakers in a room. And to critique this headphone for not defying traditional limitations means you don't like headphones! If you read Sennheisers marketing about the HD800 you would believe that they could perform this miracle. A nice grounding from you of the limitations of this headphone VS the marketing is honest and welcome. There's a lot of audiophiles out there that may buy this headphone expecting such miracles! It's to them, not headphone enthusiasts that this info is valuable.
Wow - so much controversy in the feedback/response section. I do find some of the updated review comments partially contradictory. I get the gist of the review however, and that is, they are Sennheisers' top of the range, priced accordingly, but not really worth their asking price.
Reviewing and reading high end audio of any type is always personal. I strongly believe (and have had previous employment doing such) that a true test is a measurable one with opinions formed by a panel + technical analysis.
Headphones are ideal in this aspect as they are not room dependent, not distance dependent, and can be coupled direct to the source material. I wonder if any website/magazine does this approach??? Maybe that's an opportunity for a new business?
Just to be clear, the gist of the review is definitely not that the HD 800s aren't worth the asking price. The gist of the review is that the HD 800s are superlative headphones that have specific and identifiable characteristics (which will make them ideal for some and not for others).
If one assumes that a headphone should be either a) nearly perfect or b) hands-down better than all other headphones to be worth $1399, then the HD 800s are not worth the money. Personally, I make neither of those assumptions, but you are welcome to.
If you'd share the aspects of the review that you felt were contradictory, I'd be happy to try to clarify what I hope are only apparent contradictions. Sometimes a simple comment in a review requires more context to be clear. And sometimes the writer simply isn't clear.
If you like a contentious "discussion" let me recommend that you share your thoughts on headphone review methodology in the Evaluation, Testing, Measurement and Perception forum.
I have a set, and even with the phones running off of the Denon AVR's headphone jack (aauuugghhh!) they are the most neutral and unfatiguing phones I have ever heard. Tom is right - they have no midbass thump whatsoever but do dig very deep in the "deep" bass. I found this amazing as I am primarily a speaker listener and only used phones for watching movies on the PC, etc. Not used to real bass in the cans, and natural, to beat all that.
In general character, they remind me of Scan Speak drivers in a conventional loudspeaker - very neutral and low distortion. I'm not at all sure a tube HP amp is a good idea with these, I find them a touch "soft" already. I have been looking for a nice used Black Cube for mine.
Definitely listen for yourself, but I find mine wonderful, unfatiguing and COMFORTABLE.
Robert
Nice summary.
I would only add that with headphones one must be careful to characterize tube and transistor sound. With speakers, part of "tube" sound is due to the voltage divider interaction of high output impedance (thanks to output transformers) with the wildly varying impedance of most speakers with frequency. Most headphones have much flatter impedance vs.frequency curves, so this interaction is more or less a non-issue. Tubes can sound soft, but so can transistors.
In any event, I tried 3 transistor amps, 1 hybrid and 1 all tube. My favorites were a class A transistor design and an all-tube design. I wouldn't bet that those topologies are why I liked those amps.
You see, Robert, your comments seem to better decsbibe these 'hones than the revuew...espcially when he writes "Look elsewhere if: you prefer a vivid sound with either rich bass or the ultimate in transparency", which would leave me to believe that they are lacking in bass, and in transparency. The reviewer could have wrote, to be clearer, that they "do not exagerate bass, and and not the most transparent in the world, but are up there.
Also, I do believe that you can't use live music as a direct comparison for reviewing here, for the simple reason that the headphone are producing recorded music, not live...the live aspect should always be there but cannot serve as a primary comparison factor...How could it? Why would it? The headphones are being fed a recorded and amplifier signal, which it converts into a soundwave.
You see, Robert, your comments seem to better decsbibe these 'hones than the revuew...espcially when he writes "Look elsewhere if: you prefer a vivid sound with either rich bass or the ultimate in transparency", which would leave me to believe that they are lacking in bass, and in transparency. The reviewer could have wrote, to be clearer, that they "do not exagerate bass, and and not the most transparent in the world, but are up there.
Also, I do believe that you can't use live music as a direct comparison for reviewing here, for the simple reason that the headphone are producing recorded music, not live...the live aspect should always be there but cannot serve as a primary comparison factor...How could it? Why would it? The headphones are being fed a recorded and amplifier signal, which it converts into a soundwave.
This is the second AVguide review I've read, and the second that contains lots of interesting references on relative performance but no mention of specific products that form the basis of this comparison. This is next to useless for the reader. (By the way, I find this in other publications as well and find it very annoying). Just because a reviewer thinks a product is warm, or bright, or neutral, or whatever is next to meaningless because we all hear differently. Now if you tell me these 'phones are warm relative to the AKGs or STAX that's giving me something I can use. You must have some headphones or have used headphones in the past that helped you form your conclusions -- why not mention them? Is this a policy of AVguide? If so or if this is a common practice in AVguide reviews I'll just stop reading them, which would be a shame because I like your overall format (quick and to the point) and you review some good products.
SLG:
As mentioned above, try my Ultrasone preview for a detailed comparison of the HD 800s and another pair of headphones.
That said, relative performance in our publications (TAS, Hi Fi+, AVGuide, Playback) is intended as a comment relative to the sound of live music. The idea is that live music is a known thing to which all readers can relate. Relative performance between products can be helpful if you are interested in those two products, but isn't as helpful otherwise (because you generally don't know of or care about the reference). There is more on this issue above. We try to do both kinds of comparisons, but with the live music reference as a starting point because it is more universal and more meaningful.
Hope that helps.