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
Comfort Factor/Accessories
No two heads are alike, so your mileage may vary. I like circumaural headphones, and within this genre I thought the Sennheiser HD 800s were quite comfortable for long periods. The special alcantara material on the pads is very nice. The pressure is a little high, but the pads are so big this is well distributed.
Bottom Line:
A truly excellent headphone, the HD 800 will appeal to those who want a smooth and balanced sound with ample but not punishing clarity.
Sennheiser HD 800: Another View, an updated and expanded version of this review (thanks to the discussion here) can be found in the forums.
Additional commentary and thoughts also can be found in the Ask It: Sennheiser HD 800 in the Headphone Forum.
You may wish to read coverage of competing designs:
Specs & Pricing
Sennheiser HD 800 Headphones
Accessories:
- Mini-plug to phone jack adapter
- Satin-lined storage box
Weight: 330 grams
Sensitivity: 102dB
Impedance: 300 ohms
Price: $1399.95
SENNHEISER USA
(860) 434-9190
www.sennheiser.com
Ancillary equipment used: Esoteric DV-60 universal player, Lector CDP-7 CD player, Musical Fidelity V-DAC, Benchmark DAC 1 Pre, Luxman P200 headphone amp, PS Audio GCHA headphone amp, Head-Direct EF1 headphone amp, Woo Audio WA 22 prototype headphone amp, Nordost cable
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
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.