Diffuse field equalized headphones recommendation

Ugh, you used to be so cool, dad.

1. Scroll down. You can see, the peak is conform to the rest of the spectrum(same can be seen on tylls graphs and others). The deviation is about 4 decibles from max to min. It is said that the human ear can detect a difference in loudness at 3 decibles. Also, the first few 800s did not experience this characteristic. There were reports of bottlenecks in material shipment which forced them to move to different materials. This also delayed launch in Germany compared to the US-market.
2. Yes, exellent comprehension. You see, if you want a standing wave generator for audio playback, get an HE1000/Abyss (oh, you already have those). No one recommends studio monitors for generic music pleasure. Why should the 800 be any different? I also love how you think that because some people within a border made a falsy construction, the whole country has engineers worth nothing. Also, T1 tank from WW2? Why do you even bring that up? Btw it was Sennheiser after all who invented your beloved open backs with the hd414. Even you, my highness use to say "for a closed phone is pretty good".
   
3. If you can't appreciate it, listen to the 650. Wow. Also going into the argument of the second point.
4. Also been adressed. The 800S should get even closer to flat.

But please, go throw together another one of your hexagons... After all they are created with the perfect measuring tool- your ears~

love frum germany <3

 

I'm not getting your point. I don't mean to be dense, so bear with me.

You're saying that:
1) The hd800 is tuned to be objectively flat.
2) But that this is not recommended for generic music pleasure. That this is essentially a "studio monitor" tuning?

So is your point that the objectively flat headphone target response curve is not good for generic music pleasure? That for generic music pleasure, a headphone should target a different curve (which one)?

Thanks

 

You're missing the point entirely. HD800 does not sound like a flat-loudspeaker in any circumstances. Or at least, not in any circumstances that I've heard a flat loudspeaker. The HD800 does not sound "objectively flat" to our ears. Most agree here.

Let's also leave behind the whole "studio monitor" tuning. Studio monitors are tuned for the same curve that we as consumers are supposed to be listening to. It makes no sense to mix and master music to a certain curve if your end-users are going to be using to be using a different curve. If audiophiles or bassheads listening to boomboxes or HTIBs want to listen to a different curve, that's their fault.

This is why new Olive-Welti curves that look for modern consumer preference on what sounds "good" is an exercise is futility. The standard is already set in place and already has been in place for decades.

 

@Lurker
Low-fi? You're nuts and have never even heard near fields equalized to neutral in even a semi-treated room. The 580/600/650 are much closer to monitor speakers. The DT 880, 250 or 600 ohms, plugged into a very high output impedance source such as a mixing console is much closer. The UERM too. The silver HD 650 always had "Reference Class" on the box and half of those are much further from neutral than the current ones in the black box without reference on it as Sennheiser finally changed the packaging and it was no longer their most expensive, mass-produced headphone. Sennheiser developed the HD 650 as both professionals and consumers bitched for a decade that the HD 580/600 were still slightly bright.

The 800 always had the peak. Sennheiser adjusts their curve and graph values to say whatever the hell they want. The HD 800S FR chart looks exactly like recent production regular HD 800 minus the 6kHz peak. Sennheiser has said the upper treble is still hyped, the graph's not flatter at all, and nobody has measured them or even ABed them with the regular 800. You have no idea what you are talking about and are just regurgitating crap you've read on corporate websites and hifi forums.

Linking a video of some crappy bedroom metalcore musician who hasn't done squat talking about mixing his sample replaced, digitally reamped garbage on headphones as he's a retard in a shitty band who reads his speaker's specs off an Ipad doesn't help your case. That he has a pair of m50s on his desk with the rest of his gear shows you he's probably not an audio professional as those are not actually used in studios as they bleed into mics and cost too much for tracking headphones used by vocalists who bitch that they can't hear themselves sing.

 

That is a graph of deviation from their target curve, not from some objective measure of "flatness".

Remember kids, if you see an Internet Troll: stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult!

 

My deepest apologies for offending you by spreading my faulty opinion.
Your opinion on what is right or wrong is obviously right.

It is a fact that I cannot possibly have a worthy opinion because:

1. I do not own gear that costs more than a decent car
2. ^never even listened to such system
   
3. I do not own a 1000U$+ 2.1 that goes moldy in my living room
4. I do not know whats flat sound
5. I do not participate in audio recording/mastering like Bob Katz
6. I do not use funny words like Bob Katz/Purrin-Sama
7. I call the 650 "low-fi" as a term for coloured
8. I make presumptions on behalf of something that has been posted 2003 on a shady forum
9. I, thorugh pure naivete thought Sennheiser was honest with what their High-End products can do and that they value a neutral presentation of sound
   
10. I am not a reputable member
11. I never even listened to an 800

You see, my problem was that Purrin said all target curves are dicksmanship.
That offended me because I'm a big fan of physics and I was impressed from what I read about ldf (< apparently a faulty information)
I wanted to deliver a quality post that could inform people.

If you want to ban me from this wonderful platform I will not complain, I did a mistake by letting an opinion look like a fact.

I will now descend to the graves of deepest despair.

Thank you very much for bearing with me.

 

Don't take it the wrong way. One thing you can count on at SBAF though, if you put forth a statement, you'll be asked to back it up. That's all. People may be a bit argumentative, but if your logic is sound, you'll be heard.

 

@Lurker seems to have a sense of humor though. Can't be German.
(Cheers @Lurker for putting up with this)

 

"“I maintain that, as long as you tell a German loudly and clearly what to do, if you are senior to him he will cry ‘jawohl’ and get on with it enthusiastically and efficiently." - Jack Churchill.

 

Lurker, sorry if the gang has come on a bit strong. You've arrived while the forum is still recovering from the effects of what is known as "Dick Mode".

As to your 11-count list, I think I speak for the whole gang when I say it's generally not good to run your mouth about stuff you haven't listened to or don't have a lot of experience with. Assuming you're not trolling us here. That's fine, we won't hold it against you in the future. But the ruffians will pile onto you if they smell blood.

I've noticed there's a lot of guys from the hard (and soft) sciences that seem to like the idea of applying so called objective principles and methods to "solve" audio. In their minds the human element is too unpredictable or simplistic to yield good results. But sometimes, random audio-engineers-turned-nursing students from El-Lay or evil Russian scientist/tweekers yield better headphones than multi-national audio corporations with all their research and statistical analysis. I recommend reading the Getty kouros chapter in Gladwell's Blink to get a taste of (most of) our approach.

You seem like a relatively chill guy so keep lurking and posting please.

 

There's the saying "who measures measures crap". When measuring you can only measure against a reference. Measuring should always be an act of comparison. Measuring the respone of a dummy head and considering this as "this is how humans hear" is faulty by definition.

This is why I thought ldf was a very good point to start. The Harman curve sure is great for actually listening to music, but as a reference I think there are to many (subjective) faults than optimal.
Then again, the optimal playback option would be the crators system.

It should be mentioned though that headphones have more applications than music reproduction which is were the 800 should shine. (?)

 

We're just joking around. Jack Churchill was the psychotic Scottish guy who fought World War II with a claymore.

I think Sennheiser just developed drivers and housing that performed amazingly on paper without regard for how they actually sounded and realized they were good enough to sell stock to binaural miced orchestral music aficionados, the Japanese, and Arabs due to the stereotypes of them preferring bright sound. Axel Grell actually said he initially wanted different localized voicings of the HD 800.