Senneheiser HD660S Impressions

What exactly does the 600 take out of the recording? I ask this because I disagree with you to a great extent and I don’t think it’s an issue of hearing damage.

 

Part of the problem is that a lot of instrumental and vocal information is in the upper midrange and lower treble. Humans are sensitive to it as we use it to make sense out of the world. But it also tends to get crowded quickly, and a lot of engineers are challenged when it comes to mixing and eq. For recorded/mixed music (i.e. not classical which is often a capture of a live room), eq and mixing is a mix of art and science, and what sounds great in isolation often sounds horrific in a mix and vice-versa.

I have no doubt I have some hearing loss from many years of playing and listening to live music. But assuming I've lost upper treble response, I know my midrange and lower treble are still intact, in part by comparing how I end up eq-ing things in a live mix relative to some of my fellow musicians (who have lost significantly more range). There's a reason that old rock guitarists tend to have piercing treble coming out of their rigs. For them it is "flat", but for many others it is miserable.

I've also never heard a Grado headphone that I could listen to for more than about 15 seconds. I also was challenged at a Marcus Miller show due to the tweeters in his bass cabs, but that is part of his sound. I think there ends up being a bit of a morass when considering what is "neutral" vs what is "live/accurate" vs what the artist intended. I know I've struggled with this in the past with engineers when tracking bass parts. My intent gets lost in the mix - literally. But someone may hear it as perfectly "correct."

This is somewhat akin to Steve Gadd and his infamous stick click in the recording of Aja. At first when asked about it he didn't really comment, then over time the story because that he did it on purpose instead of an accident. So intended art or revisionist history?

Back on-topic, the 660 got delivered to home today, but won't get to hear them until after rehearsal, at which point not sure how much critical listening I'll be doing after 3 hours of a 10-piece Steely Dan tribute band working up tunes...

 

[Off-topic] :

Speaking of Audio Technica, Marv you really should listen to X5000.

It seems they completely abandoned typical colored AT sound and sound really decent. It was RMAF so the detailed listening was impossible, but they sounded really good.

[/Off-topic]

 

"I think I should turn down" said no guitarist ever...

 

Thank you for this. This a thousand times.

 

@Vorlon said

"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"

I was wondering how you're defining neutral.

Not as a challenge in any way, but as a point of reference.

That seems to be one of those terms that people use assuming everyone has the same definition. (If there is an already agreed upon definition used here, I apologize.) It's just that if the 660S is described as "more energetic (in bass, mids and treble)" than that would sound like it's farther from what many call neutral.

 

I usually go with the (slightly altered) Supreme Court definition of pornography: "I can't define it but I know it when I hear it"

Some musicians chase "neutral" or "unaltered", others go completely the opposite side of the tracks. For me "neutral" means that what I'm hearing matches what the musicians intended. But that never really works as there are so many parts of the process that invariably create artifacts or artifice that it is a best guess as to intentions. I listen to my mixes on at least a half dozen systems, and they all sound different - hopefully they all sound good, whatever that means.

The closest I can come is for studio recordings of bands I've heard live, and even that is a total crapshoot. Often live shows are so compromised that you're back to wondering wtf is going on. I've seen Hiromi a number of times, and only about half those shows I could really hear Anthony Jackson's bass - which was a shame.

So I default to whether or not I enjoy the experience. Neutrality is kind of like truth - while there might be a belief in an absolute definition, reality is perception so it almost becomes obviated and build down to a question of what the listener's goals are.

 

@Marvey Does that 5 kHz resonance stand out if you listen to pink noise? I’m curious about the magnitude of the wonkiness

 

Please don't keep bumping threads if you have nothing concrete to share about the product being discussed -- you've done this in multiple threads now. There are plenty of other places for you to discuss your personal definition of neutrality, but this is the HD660S impressions thread. Try your best to keep your posts on topic.

 

From what i gather, it seems that HD660s is not a worthy successor to HD600&HD650. Next.

 

Uggh. The very definition of a shitpost. Friends are supposed to exhibit a higher standard of participation. Bring back the dislike button.

 

Pretty much. At least, it seems that way to me. Hopefully we won't have to wait another decade and a half to see if they come up with something better. At that point, they will probably just re-release the 600 and 650 as retro headphones.

With that, I definitely have noticed a lot more HFish types of reviews and impressions on gear and headphones on here.

 

So by that definition, I guess the 600S IS closer to 'neutral'... or that definition thereof.

Very helpful. I'm on the fence about selling my HD600 because the mids bug me occasionally. I'm guessing the right amp could mitigate this (edit: I should note that it's primarily a Hugo V1 or an old ALO National), but I'm not sure if I'd be better off selling for a 6xx. I WAS hoping the 660s could be a compromise, but that's out for me, it seems.