I wouldn't stress out too much. In terms of all tube amps, the mk4 is better than most everything else out there and it's not even close. Scary knowing the HD800 keeps scaling.

some of my impressions:

HE560
Build quality was quite nice.  The new pads and headband design are really sharp.  I found they clamped a bit too hard for me but that is a common complaint of mine (and easily fixed). The only thing I could see is that the plastic used to attach the cups looks like it may be a potential durability issue.

I was surprised how hard these were to drive, pretty much the same as the previous Hifiman's.

Sound quality wise I wasn't really that impressed.  Everything had a kind of fuzzy unfocused sound compared with the other can's we had.  Physical impact in the bass was okay, maybe a little better than the HD800 but nowhere near as good as the Code-X.  Cymbals were more subdued and lacked weight/definition.  I much preferred the modded HE500 in both of these areas.

I think the biggest issue with the 560 is the lack of detail.  Using the percussion imaging test they lacked a level of realism and detail in drum hits.  Everything sounded the same, like there was something missing that allows you to differentiate between the sounds.  All the other can's we had did a better job of portraying the tautness of the skins and differentiation between drums.

I also don't think they are as good with macrodynamics as the HD800 or Code-X.  Gradations in volume and overall dynamic range sounded compressed.  To borrow from Marvs grading scheme, it was like HD800 go from 1-10 and HE560 go from 4-10.

Soundstage was probably around the same as the HE5, though slightly more forward sounding.  HD800 and Code-X do an excellent job in this regard.

I don't think anybody is going to have an issue with these headphones.  The FR is definitely not bright. I think the sound signature is closest to the HE5 but with less treble.  With cymbals HE500 sounded brighter than the 560.

That being said, I don't think they are bad headphones.  My level of reference has gone up quite drastically in the last little while.  The detail and diffuse imaging problems really bugged me.  Those are the two things I look for the most and what I have built my entire system on.  I can see the 560 being a really good seller as they are basically a jack of all trades and a master of none.  I basically just got bored listening to them in the same way I did with the LCD3.

I think they are overpriced for what they are, but probably not by much.  I prefer the modded HE500s to the 560 and would prefer the Code-X over anything else I have heard except the HD800.  In fact it made me realize how incredible the Code-X actually are. 



LCD-3
These are nicely resolving headphones, but still behind the HD800.  I like that they have a darker sound signature yet still retain good plankton retrieval.  The thing that bugged me the most is that the bass is so anemic.  If I am going to deal with ortho weight I want ortho bass.


HD800
Soooo nice...still the ultimate for me.  It really is scary how much they scale.  I have zero problem's with them in any genre.  The only reason I feel the need for anything else is because of the ortho bass (when done right).  I can roll tubes and fw to improve the bass with the HD800 but I really like the tonal balance that I have achieved right now.  HD800 bass is very tight and clean.  I find the orthos tend to be fuller and more expansive sounding in the bass region.



It is a pity you couldn't make it lmswjm.  Next time for sure!  At that point we can have our own DAC off with the M7, 2 PWDs, and the Metrum Hex.

I love mini-meeting, it is always so much more productive than a full size meet.  Thanks again to Jerg for coming by and sharing his Hifiman 's.

I know, but it just is.

A big part of it is our ability to zero in on things, or turn the zoom ring depending upon what we are accustomed to. There is where someone like Anax is commonly misunderstood. Everything is relative. And then, everything is according to the current "zoom level" of operation. Tiny differences to others may be huge to us. Yes, our ears and acuity really are or can that good when developed. Check out this blind kid who uses radar to see:


I blindfolded myself and tried to do what that kid did, but I couldn't. Doesn't mean what he's doing is BS.

At some "magnification" level, we may decide the differences not worth it. A few of us here really do strive to zoom in as much as possible. It's part of this chase to be able to reproduce that experience which mimics reality. In the sense of reproducing reality, FR alone really doesn't have a huge part to play with it. (I place a high priority on FR, but it's mostly for reasons other than the one I will state below.) I love it when I listen to music, and sometimes I turn my head around or get shocked at particular passages because I was able to be fooled into thinking the sounds were actually part of the environment and not from a recording.

This kind of experience goes beyond simple frequency response measurements and does not require hires DSD from Sony.

So much of the human hearing mechanism is based around interpreting the sound envelope, rather than piecing together frequency components of the fine structure.

Your ancestors didn't avoid predators by having perfect pitch. At least, the ones that survived didn't.

Shouldn't come as a surprise that FR takes a backseat to other time domain qualities.

Theoretically I don't think the FR would really matter for dynamics.  It doesn't matter what the frequency response is, all you are doing is comparing the range of sounds that are able to be produced.  It is inherently relative to itself.  FWIW I am not referencing the soundtrack that you mentioned.  It was actually from one of my test tracks and not close to the elevated treble region of the HD800. 

Anyway it is really semantics.  I don't delve into understanding why something sounds the way it does.  Whether it is a fair comparison or not if something gives the illusion of greater dynamic range then I am not bothered about why.  I see it as the equivalent to soundstage.  It is easy to produce the illusion of soundstage by creating a slightly diffuse resonant sound or moving drivers off axis like Ultrasone.  I just respond to what I hear.

Marv perfectly summed up what I meant with my impressions.  None of this stuff is going to be a huge difference.  It really depends on what you are looking for.  The other day I went back and listened to the Vali again and was like WTF.  It was nothing like what I remembered.  After my point of reference changed I never bothered to go back and compare.  I am lucky to be in the position where I get to own a rig that comes damn close to perfect for me.  Differences for me will probably not be important or noticeable to others.