It has been a while since I listened to stock HE500's and never on my current setup so hard for me to say wrt clarity. I think you are right about the next step in comfort and FR.


In the end we are talking about differences in priorities.  The HD800 are not going to give you that great ortho bass.  For me the HD800 gets reasonably close and the improvement in bass detail is worth the trade off.  HD800 takes a significant investment to get to that point though.  It was really only when I got the PWD that I was completely happy. The HD800 weren't helped by the one note bass characteristic and airy sounding mids of the Anedio D2.  The Code-X didn't seem to mind and thrived in those areas by providing a wonderful richness and physicality.

I should have tried the 560 with the Burson as I think the mk4 kind of exposed the 560 limitations.  There is always something to be said for synergy.  The Burson sounded really wonderful with the Code-X.  Adding the smooth characteristic of the Burson (or similar amp) could be just the ticket to getting the right sound with the 560 as they are detail limited anyway.

I was hoping that the 560 would be more similar to the Code-X.  This probably has something to do with my 560 impressions.  The Code-X have an amazing ability to project a deep soundstage while retaining excellent clarity. The 560 seem to utilize something more along the lines of the HD800 slightly diffuse imaging trick. 

If you are already a 500 fan I think you will really like the 560.  If you didn't like the 500, I don't think the 560 will sway you. 

I don't know I would say the 560 sounded very warm. 

Meant it more as the tone of headphone rather than in terms of absolute frequency response.
Did you find the the vocals thicker than natural, slight mid-bass bloom, difficulty in picking out tightness of drums or strings, instruments blurring into each other etc.? If yes, then the headphone is under-damped.

The HD800 are not going to give you that great ortho bass.

Its a matter of trade-offs. The HD800 trades it bass response to gain that soundstage depth which makes it unique. It is essentially a free-floating driver with almost no seal to the baffle allowing the backwave to freely mix with the front wave. The effect is to provide a bigger soundstage esp. depth however mixing of two out of phase waves is destructive esp. in the region of bass. Most of you must have noticed the reduction in bass with planars when you break the seal of pads, its basically the same effect at a smaller scale - some of the backwave trickling in.
Try using the LCD-3 without the pads and then let us know how much bass it manages because that's actually what the HD800 is doing, providing that bass without the help of a backwave seal.

P.S. : If someone was inclined, then he could tweak the material used for the baffle in HD800 to something a bit more denser. This would lead to an increase in bass although at the cost of some of that soundstage depth. Depends what you are looking for though!

^ I think I remember jerg mentioning that he improved the bass response of HE560 by improving the seal of driver to the baffle.

The loss in sub-bass from interference would in the case of undamped(Hifiman,Abyss) orthos be accompanied by an increase in midbass owing to the driver defaulting to its primary resonance (due to the loss of damping on the earside from the pressure created by the seal). This increase in mid-bass can potentially mask the loss of sub-bass and probably why you feel that they are not losing any bass.

Very interested with He-560s now - maybe for work now that I have a real office with my new job. Moar resolving and comfy sounds great. How's the 560 bass - less thick than the HE-500s?

OK. Will do. Just bought a house. 29 more days to end of escrow. Will have rig back up by then.