Each instrument seems more diffuse than it can with other headphones and many speakers, which I would guess is due to the spatial engineering of the HD 800. In any event, the slightly more diffuse sound on offer will be attractive to some listeners and may amerliorate some of the inevitable high frequency imperfections.
This brings us to the question of whether the HD 800’s spatial engineering helps with the sense of soundstaging that is often a problem with headphones (a Sennheiser claim). In a word, I’d say no. The performers don’t seem to be on stage in front of you much more than with traditional headphones or earbuds. And with a standard amplifier, you still lack the crossfeed of left sounds into your right ear (and vice versa) that is part of normal listening.
Don’t get me wrong, the HD 800s are no worse in these matters than other phones. In fact I think they offer significantly more of the sense that instruments are being played in real space than other headphones, and that is an important advantage. But with the HD 800s those instruments in real space are positioned left and right of your ears, so the soundstage isn't like live music (with its positioning of performers in front of you, spread left to right). Just like other headphones, the HD 800s don’t image like speakers or live performers.
All of this may seem like damning with faint praise, which isn’t really what I intend. The above remarks are there to explain the character of the HD800s and need to be viewed in the context of the general neutrality of these headphones. Most headphones are pretty obviously flawed, if we’re honest. With the HD 800, Sennheiser has gone a long way to reduce those flaws, which makes this a very special pair of headphones. This also means that a description of the character of headphones like the HD 800 is likely to make small flaws seem bigger than they really are.
Because the flaws in the HD 800 are in fact quite small, my colleague Alan Sircom was enthralled with the HD 800s when he reviewed them in our sister magazine from the UK, Hi-Fi Plus. He compared them with $25,000 loudspeakers to give you a sense of how much he loved them.
I’m more in the camp that likes, but doesn’t love, the HD 800. I believe that has less to do with outright flaws in the HD 800, and much to do with what I want a headphone to do. I want a headphone to provide an alternative listening experience. I want to hear things on recordings that I don’t hear as well via speakers. This partially comes from my sense that headphones just can’t do the virtual reality thing that traditional speaker-based audio can. At the same time, I need a certain vividness in my headphone listening that makes up for the things headphones inevitably take away.
From some perspectives this vividness is called coloration. Maybe. But the declaration of coloration refers to reasonable though arbitrary notions of “correct”. All I know is this: live music is vivid. The HD 800s, at least with the amps I used initially (primarily the Luxman P200 and PS Audio GCHA), are not vivid, which is what keeps me on the “like” side of the line. I have since tried the prototype Woo Audio WA 22 amp (which is tube rather than solid state and has variable output impedance). The WA 22 takes the sense of vividness up a notch, mostly by making the midrange contrast level higher, while introducing minimal if any deleterioius side effects. The mostly subtractive errors noted above are still there, but they are diminished in the overall presentation. 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.

“Cheek to Cheek”, the opening track on Eva Cassidy’s fantastic Live at Blues Alley [Blix Street], tells you a lot about the HD 800s. First off, all the instruments from string bass to cymbals are well represented and in appropriate balance (a lot of headphones fail this test). Second, Eva’s voice via amplification has a very slight shrillness to it, which the HD800’s faithfully reproduce. That’s good in this case, because experience with this disc says that some shrillness is inherent to the recording. Headphones that soften the edges of the singer’s voice too much will typically sound foggy and drab on most material. But conversely, ‘phones that sharpen Eva’s voice too much and are likely to be unlistenable on the many bad recordings we get these days. Happily, the HD800’s find that “just right” balance point in the middle.
The other thing “Cheek to Cheek” shows is that the HD 800s, with their somewhat diffuse sound, don’t quite nail the rhythm of this track. When the band kicks in, you hear everything clearly, yet the drive of the rhythm section is slightly more reserved than would ideally be the case. Nonetheless there is a nice air around the instuments.
Comments
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.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I think the problem with giving more (or rather "too much" ) weight to the sound of live music as a basis of comparison, rather than other equipment is that, in the end, the reader is faced with the choice between the live music, which is impossible to both reproduce and purchase, and the equipment being reviewed.
However, I may be drawing an absurd piece of sophistry for all I know. But I try to see things from the audio consummer standpoint, i.e., which piece of equipment delivers the goods closest to the absolute sound and within my budget?
I think the problem with giving more (or rather "too much" ) weight to the sound of live music as a basis of comparison, rather than other equipment is that, in the end, the reader is faced with the choice between the live music, which is impossible to both reproduce and purchase, and the equipment being reviewed.
However, I may be drawing an absurd piece of sophistry for all I know. But I try to see things from the audio consummer standpoint, i.e., which piece of equipment delivers the goods closest to the absolute sound and within my budget?
Infotrad:
I think what you say makes sense. It seems that you actually want to use my method 5 (use of live music as a reference), but in addition you want a comparison of different products (on the basis of how well they reproduce the sound of live music). I thought you were against live music as a reference.
If you find a man with the most expensive set of speakers, amps, etc. and listened to an symphonic classical piece, would you think/know it to be better than hearing it live? Of course you wouldn't because the whole point of recording music is to capture real live instruments in space and time. Therefore, the ultimate goal of an audiophile's headphone is to help the recording's initial purpose of repoducing the authentic quality of live music. All I'm really trying to say is that you want the recorded sound of a live violin to sound exactly like a live violin. Does this make me too human?
I'm gathering from your review that vividness is what I'm looking for, correct me if I'm wrong, so I should seek another pair of headphones? Which ones would you recommend?
Derek:
In my review of the HD 800s, I intended the term "vividness" to be one holistic quality of live music, not to cover everything. I was trying to indicate a byproduct of the strategy I perceive in the HD 800s -- the drive to eliminate additive colorations (excess bass, bright treble, etc). The result is that the HD 800s seem to mainly have small subtractive colorations (see my comments on mid-bass and upper midrange for example). The result of this approach is that you are not annoyed by obvious deviations in the form of frequency emphases or dynamic errors. This basically is what I intended by the notion of "naturalness", also a holistic term that doesn't cover all aspects of sound. But, I believe, the result is also that music on the HD 800s can seem slightly less alive and dynamic than the real thing (i.e. less "vivid"). See my review of the Denon AH-D5000s for the opposite approach.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
If you want the recorded sound of a live violin to sound exactly like a live violin, Derek, then don't listen to recorded music, because the recording of a violin will not exactly the same; although one has to be clear about what "exactly" means in this context. Many people are very satisfied with their soud systems, where the violin may sound more like a Scott Cao than a Stradivarius, but that's still very good if it's Isaac Stern holding the bow.
If you want the recorded sound of a live violin to sound exactly like a live violin, Derek, then don't listen to recorded music, because the recording of a violin will not exactly the same; although one has to be clear about what "exactly" means in this context. Many people are very satisfied with their soud systems, where the violin may sound more like a Scott Cao than a Stradivarius, but that's still very good if it's Isaac Stern holding the bow.
Infotrad:
Let's take a deep breath and consider the possibility that guys like Derek actually have a point. You may disagree, but it would be helpful for you to consider the real life alternatives. If we want to judge whether a component is good or not, there are basically five approaches:
1. The reviewer can tell us whether he likes the gear based on whether it "sounds good". Not very useful because we don't know what the basis for liking (may be meaningless) is and it is hard to compare what different reviewers say (since they may have different standards).
2. The reviewer could measure the equipment. May be helpful if you are an audio engineer, but less useful for normal people. Presumes you can connect measurements with sonic results.
3. The reviewer could articulate how accurately the equipment reproduces what hit the microphones or went on to the recording. Probably the ideal, but not very practical because neither is not something reviewers have access to in the real world.
4. The reviewer can compare the sound of a piece to other equipment. Not very helpful for many people because the comparison is not known, nor is its performance an absolute standard.
5. The reviewer can compare how the equipment sounds vs. live music. This is problematic because it includes the recording chain, but it does at least provide a knowable (by reviewer and audience), meaningful standard. By using many recordings and known ancillary equipment, the reviewer can reduce these problems. This is the practical version of idea 3.
Many of us who visit AVGuide regularly think approach 5 is reasonable. But we accept the goal implicit in 5, which is that we want reproduced music to basically sound like live music. We also have accepted that each of us will have ways we want or are willing to have the sound deviate from what we hear at concerts.