Senneheiser HD660S Impressions

Makes sense given the more open driver cell. Too bad the modding potential seems low.

 

Recent discussions feel like a rediscovery or appreciation of technically better 600 (compared to 650/660).

 

Wow!!!!

Was getting ready to make an Xmas present of HD 650M "Frankenheisers". I think I may just strip and repaint my DIY grilles!

Tossing in a galvanic 3, a couple of
hardblock uptone A/B's and fine tunning my Jplay settings has my babies scaling like mad!

Put my 5 large into a JCAT femto perhaps...
Scale away..scale away...to paraphrase an Enya song!

Happy Listening

 

Does anybody have an idea as to when will 660S capsules be available and if so, for how much? They’ll work fine with my existing HD 650 right? This way I get the 660S sound for much less. Also, do the different Earpads change the sound in any way?

 

I got my 660S yesterday, and while I was initially disappointed, they are growing on me. It took several hours at least to get used to the sound. To me they seem faster and more energetic than the 650, with better bass quality. I'd say the 650 sounds more refined, and the 660S is more fun. I really enjoy both headphones.

 

Time to cash in one of my first non GoT related posts since January, what happened to marvs measurements? I've always found them helpful to complement subjective impressions.

 

My bad, might want to add them in the measurement index since they don't have their own measurement thread.

 

So my HD 660 S finally arrived today... Take these impressions with a grain of salt as I´ve only used these for one evening. Source is a Sennheiser HDV820 via 4.4mm balanced.

Let´s start with the box. Same size and style as with HD 6XX. This is obviously a HD 650 replacement as shown by the official marketing slogan, "the legend continues". The look is a very down to business, all black with some nice Sennheiser grill highlights. Drivers from the outside look exactly like on HD 700. These are super lightweight as expected. Comfort is the same as HD 650, which for me basically means perfect. Clamp is pretty tight just like on HD 6XX, but I have a small head so for me it´s optimal. Earpads may have a bit more room inside.

As for the sound I have to start with a disclaimer that I´m of the firm belief that this is in the end such a subjective hobby that one should never make any major decisions based on other people´s opinions. Find a store that carries a lot of headphones and listen yourself (or go to a meet). Find your own favorites and go your own way. Don´t buy anything based on internet forum comments (including these). Always audition before buying.

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember stock HD 650 sounding a bit boring and dull (but fantastic for easy listening). The HD 660 S do not sound boring or dull in any way whatsoever, so the signature sound is much closer to HD 600 than HD 650. I actually think they share some of "draws your attention and holds it" DNA from the HD 700, but without the painful treble spikes. That being said, I have to say I´m one of those who actually liked many aspects of the HD 700 - it was just the way overdone treble that was a deal breaker for me. So far the HD 660 S sounds more or less what I wanted the HD 700 to sound like. Compared to HD 600:

- There´s no initial "wow!" impression (= audioband is well integrated)
- Obviously more sensitive because of the lower impedance
- Neither headphone digs up microdetail like a HD 800 (but I´m not convinced this necessarily a bad thing)
- Overall sound is a little clearer, cleaner, faster and more energetic (in bass, mids and treble)
- If there ever was a veil in HD600/650, there is absolutely none to be found here
- These aren´t treble shy* at all subjectively (brightly mastered low DR music will sound worse than on HD 650, possibly HD 600 too)
- Instrument separation is better
- Soundstage is a bit wider, but the same classic HD6XX 3-blob style remains (this may just be due to the increased clarity)
- Vocals are a bit more forward and/or just grab your attention more (I´m a big fan of this)
- Bass is somewhat tighter and better defined, especially apparent in electronica (HD 600 just rolls off faster creating an illusion of good bass control just like small speakers do)
- Overall sound is simply more technical/modern (vs. HD600 sounds more relaxed)
- These cause more listening fatigue in very long listening sessions (but still nothing compared to HD 800/T1 2g and others)
= I won´t be keeping my HD 600

* Example: in the rainy version of the map in PUBG, the rain sounds stronger, more detailed and more alive compared to HD 600. It´s amazing that these measure having the same treble as HD 650.

EDIT: Note that some of these observations are probably at least partly influenced by going balanced vs. single ended.

 

I hear they are going to play Coachella next year...

 

Interesting that they do so well out of the HDV 820. Sennheiser doesn't even list them as being "compatible"

 

I wonder if this is going to catch on.

 

Definitely agree that single ended vs. balanced isn´t completely fair, but on the other hand differences are also often exaggerated. Did a few A/B tests with very familiar material this morning against a balanced HD 600 (same 4.4mm cable) with pretty much the same result. Soundstage widens and bass tightens a bit on HD 600, making those differences perhaps void.

The main overall differences however in clarity, speed and energy remain the same. The difference in treble and instrument separation are completely identical. HD 600 has a a little "boring" and somewhat veiled vibe to it in comparison, but I have to say that is actually very pleasant on brightly mastered low DR music. It´s more forgiving and that´s a very important attribute that´s often overlooked. Albums like Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers sound better on HD 600. I have to admit I do have a small urge to keep the HD 600 for this reason alone, but in the end I don´t like to swap headphones so they´ll be going. All in all I´d say being less compatible with bright/low DR music is simply the price you pay for higher resolution. Same phenomenon happens with HD 800 S.

Next up later today is going to be testing high resolution studio masters. That´s where I anticipate the most significant difference vs. HD 600.

EDIT: Back home doing some more testing... The speed increase is really apparent with electronica like Yello in songs like "Bostich (Reflected)". Also classic well recorded rock like Dire Straits stuff sounds really good too - much more engaging than on HD600/650. Moving on to Tidal studio masters next.

 

To get the higher DR, you have to leave room for the peaks - which will invariably lower gain levels when recording. One reason that some bands will still master to magnetic tape (and a whole cottage industry has evolved around digital mimicry of "tape") is due to saturation as levels increase to 0db. That natural compression ends up being desirable to some (many?), and distortion invariably comes into play as well - which can be desirable to some (many?) as well. A big part of the problem is radio - for broadcast things are compressed, and louder always wins so that bled into mixing and production. At some point apparent loudness began to be the ultimate goal, and compression is how you get there. But no free lunch - you lose dynamic range, increase noise floor, etc.

Just like salt, I find compression to be essential but the trick is balancing it and too much is problematic.

 

I was a very inaccurate with my phrasing there - what I should have said is high resolution stereo masters with high DR (there are some out there, just not many; most are crap as you said). Many of the 24 bit "high res audio" files are basically transfers of the analogue tape or even the vinyl version with just better DR. Computer Audiophile forums for example are a good source for finding out which high res files actually contain more information (some are just upsampled CD remasters, aka a scam) and have a high DR rating. So fully agreed with you there, most remasters have ruined the sound and the almost without exception the older CD versions sound better. There are so many examples of this: Metallica, Madonna, Dire Straits, Fleetwood Mac, Chris Rea, Leonard Cohen, Depeche Mode and the list goes on on and on. Unfortunately most streaming services these days tend to have the remasters and not the originals making things even worse.

As for resolution not being the most important thing in the chain, absolutely. Well done 16bit/44kHz high DR sounds better than 90% of the so called high resolution studio masters out there. I should probably get back into buying used CD´s as that is probably a better way to get high DR material than scanning through Tidals masters collection or trying to find good stuff on HDTracks.com. All things being equal though, I think 24bit/96kHz does have a very small audible edge over classic CD material. It´s definitely not a huge difference though. Dynamic range is what matters most.

Anyways to get back to HD 660 S... I´ve done a lot of my listening with pretty sparse music like Leonard Cohen, Katie Melua, Diana Krall, Johnny Cash, Norah Jones and stuff like that and there the difference is indeed very audible (as in not even close). Acoustic and electronica being my favorite genres I guess I´m lucky. I still think it´s also fairly apparent on most busier stuff, especially with electronica and many pop arrangements. Rock is probably the weakest link here, but even then if you listen to old Dire Straits stuff or Mark Knopfler I think there´s an audible difference in favor of the new driver. I haven´t listened to much rock yet though, not a genre I listen to a lot usually. But yeah, I fully agree that the difference is by far the most audible with sparse arrangements. Classical I haven´t tried at all yet so I can´t comment on that.

We probably have differing taste or tolerance in how much upper midrange/lower treble we feel is natural or neutral. I personally think the HD 600 isn´t really cinema mode, it´s more like a set of polarized glasses that takes something out of the recording (often making it easier to and more pleasant to listen to). It´s easy listening mode turned up 50% when HD 650 is turned up 100%. HD 800 S is cinema mode. HD 600 is more like a good 10 bit VA quantum dot panel LCD vs OLED on HD 660 S. HD 650 takes a ton of information out by design, but HD 600 is still guilty of the same. Not as much, but it´s still there. Vivid mode I would say is Beyerdynamic T1 or stock HD 800. If you listen to calibrated studio gear like large high end Genelecs that measure almost completely flat the sound is very alive and energetic*. HD 600 sounds more like some of the more relaxed sounding British hi-fi speakers. In other words I´d say HD 660 S gets closer to neutral than HD 600, but the real kicker is that neutrality is often not all that enjoyable with most material. Many hobbyists in audio say they want neutral or balanced, but in reality they don´t. If you listen to something like "5.15 AM" by Mark Knopfler on studio gear it sounds stunning; more relaxed speakers will never get close to the same magic, but they do sound better with most material that people actually listen to. Almost all of high end audio is colored by design and that´s a good thing in general.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many people - especially music enthusiasts who have been to a lot of concerts without hearing protection - suffer from mild hearing damage. Of which one of the first symptoms is usually treble sensitivity. I´d say a substantial part of the high end audio market specifically targets people with extra upper midrange/treble sensitivity. I´ve noticed it with a friend who plays bass guitar in a band; my upper midrange/treble pain threshold seems tons higher. And yup, he loves the HD 650 and can´t stand almost any modern headphones I´ve had him test. It´s also very likely that even without any mild hearing damage, upper midrange/treble sensitivity simply varies a lot in people. It has be so, otherwise there wouldn´t be a market for Beyerdynamic and Ultrasone.

I also think you might be mistaking another phenomena for the compression you mentioned. Relaxed sounding transducers like HD 600 will always let you turn up the volume more, but that´s just because of the tonal balance (something is taken out of the sound by design making listening at higher volumes more enjoyable). HD 800 doesn´t like turning up the volume that much either and it has nothing to do with compression. It´s the same reason Elear sounds so dynamic: you can crank up the volume a ton without the upper midrange/lower treble being painful. In reality it doesn´t have much to do with being dynamic or not. Subjectively louder as long as the upper midrange/treble discomfort threshold isn´t broken almost always sounds "better" (more shadow detail is then audible too), which is unfortunately what fueled the loudness wars in the first place. If most budget friendly consumer audio gear was more neutral instead of warm with a treble roll-off the loudness wars would never have happened. Just got the new Apple AirPods today and they are a prime example of why the loudness war is still on.

* Another example: I´ve listened to some local music in a well treated room with Amphion Two18 studio speakers, basically the same setup the album was made with. I´d definitely say the HD 660 S sounds closer to that sound than the HD 600 (HD 800 on the other hand is brighter/too energetic in some parts of the treble) does. HD 800 S gets the closest.

 

I mean, HD600 does sound relaxed compared to many other headphones such as pretty much all Beyerdynamic headphones, AKG headphones, Grado headphones and so forth.

I understand people here usually dislike these brands, hence they are rarely talked about, but they are out there and tons of people like them. My K712 (and old K501!) and Beyer T1 really remind me of that.

Personally I cannot stand any post-Joseph Grado headphones for more than 30 minutes even with flat pads, but there are a lot of people like them, not just old people.