r/sennheiser • u/Pndrstrt • 1d ago
❓QUESTION❓ Worth upgrading from Sony xm3 to Hdb 630?
I’ve been using a Sony WH-1000XM3 for years and it still works perfectly fine, but I’m wondering if the HDB 630 would be a genuinely significant upgrade in sound quality.
At my desk I use a Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro for making music, and I much prefer its sense of detail and clarity. Going back to the XM3, it sounds noticeably less precise to me.
I’m not expecting the HDB 630 to replace a studio headphone, but I’m looking for a wireless/ANC headphone that’s significantly more detailed and refined than the XM3.
Has anyone here gone from an XM3/XM4 or something similar to the HDB 630? Was the difference immediately noticeable, or is it more of a subtle upgrade?
Basically: if my XM3 still works, is the sound quality jump big enough to justify upgrading?
1
1
u/Dr_Vortep 23h ago
Hi, person who has done exactly this upgrade
Go for it you will not regret it. But make sure to do some equilizer tuning for yourself with your songs, cause imo HDB 630 sound profile is a lil weird for my ehhh EDM but can be adjusted to anything
2
u/Pndrstrt 19h ago
That’s exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, thanks! How’s the ANC compared to the XM3 ? Much worse or still good enough?
1
u/Dr_Vortep 14h ago
Notably worse unfortunately( It is really "good enough" at very best yes, but sound quality is worth it
1
1
u/Vekrede 22h ago edited 22h ago
If you have the DT 770’s how do you envision using the HDB’s?
I have the HDB’s because I didn’t have a good closed back set yet. And they are a good step above the XM4’s (didnt have the 3’s). But… the ANC is better on the Sony’s so I use the HDB’s a lot less out and about and, if I’m honest, usually I’m not critically listening so... I would say they are basically the HD620s with built-in BT and good (not great ANC).
If you want Bluetooth, maybe getting something like a retro nano or Qudelix 5k might be the solution. I find I use my HD600/660’s with my Qudelix more than I would have thought.
Essentially I’m saying, for how I use mine, I realized after a while if I had a wired set of closed backs like the 770’s or 620’s I’m not sure I would have bought the 630’s. But that’s just my use case.
1
u/Pndrstrt 19h ago
That’s really useful, thanks. My DT770s are basically desk-only, so I’d use the HDBs mostly around the house, in bed, travelling and when walking my dog.
I do use ANC quite a bit though, and I also take a lot of calls with my headphones. Is the ANC on the HDB noticeably worse than the XM4, or just a bit less effective?1
u/Vekrede 19h ago edited 19h ago
The ANC is a little bit worse in most cases, and noticeably worse in others.
For example, flying commercial airlines it’s not that bad compared to the xm4’s. When I fly on our company plane (dual prop) it’s meaningfully different, to the point I rather not use them.
Essentially it doesn’t handle the mid to high frequency cancellation that well. Is it awful? No. But being used to Sony/bose/momentum’s it’s a meaningful step down. That being said, they are still usable.
Soundguys or rtings might have a good noise cancelation graph you can compare between the two, based on frequencies, since I know it’s kind of a subjective opinion. But based on what you said, I think you would probably be fine with the ANC
-9
u/Responsible-Pen-4386 23h ago
XM6 are way better.
6
3
u/Vekrede 23h ago
The XM6’s are not in the same category as the HDB 630’s… the HDB 630’s absolutely trounce the XM6’s when it comes to sound quality.
-8
u/Responsible-Pen-4386 23h ago
If you have hearing problems, sure.
1
u/lolkawai 21h ago
Sound quality is highly subjective, and it is possible that one can find the XM6 to sound better than the HDB630 due to unusual peaks and dips caused by HRTF and anatomical differences, or due to musical preferences.
Generally speaking, however, the XM6 is not highly praised for sound quality, while the HDB630 is by the majority for many reasons. This will not necessarily apply to everyone, so it might be much better to phrase such claims as "to my ears" or "for my taste," rather than making absolute statements.
1
u/Vekrede 21h ago edited 21h ago
I would say sound quality isn’t subjective, but sound signature/preference are. At least in the way I think most audiophiles view it.
Sound quality is about the technicality of the sound (instrument separation, soundstage, etc) vs frequency response (sound signature/preference) which is subjective (V shape, neutral, etc).
At least in the last 20 years that’s how I’ve separated them out as an audiophile.
I also fully understand why someone wouldn’t like the HDB630 sound signature. It’s a very different sound profile to the xm6/momentum 5’s. But since the OP has the DT 770’s I think he would be completely fine with the more neutral HDB’s. Plus they EQ incredibly well.
1
u/lolkawai 21h ago
Yes, in general, sound quality can be described by signature and technicality. However, both are psychoacoustic and cognitive interpretations by our brain of what we expect sound to be, and both are, in the end, the product of a highly complex physical process of frequencies behaving relative to given physicalities. These factors are highly variable due to subjective differences: HRTF, acoustic impedance, earcup seal, ear pinna position, depth of the earcup, positional differences, ear canal differences, and even the cognitive domain regarding our brain's ability to process sound, trained versus untrained ears, the brain's expectation system, and the interpretation of frequencies. Technical sound quality is therefore also subjective to a certain degree, as it is a certain pattern of frequency characteristics that is also influenced by those subjective differences.
1
u/Vekrede 20h ago edited 20h ago
I see your point.
But I would disagree on the extent of difference for everything besides HRTF. If that were the case, people wouldn’t have come to a general consensus nor would headphone manufacturers be able to produce reference headsets and audio, in general, would be a mess.
HRTF with closed backs though does make a huge difference, not so much on open backs (which is beyond the point of this thread). And I will say the HRTF for the HDB’s are not great. It is one of the downsides. The AirPods Max actually have the best in the business with their DSP processing using a variety of sensors to mitigate this issue.
1
u/lolkawai 20h ago
Yes, the mentioned factors besides HRTF are not strong enough to turn a headphone into its polar opposite, and they will not turn a closed-back sound into an open-back sound because of these differences; I just wanted to clarify that technical sound quality is not fully objective, is variable, and sound in general is a highly complex process, so absolute statements are dangerous to make regarding both sound signature and technicalities.
1
u/Vekrede 20h ago edited 20h ago
I dunno. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. But not by much.
A technically better headphone will respond to an EQ much better than one that is technically not as good. Which means you can mitigate the subjective nature of the variables you mentioned. Besides HRTF.
You don’t usually get a full PEQ on BT headphones, for a reason, because the drivers don’t respond well to that level of customization (High Q values can stress drivers and distort quite a bit unless they have the technicality to support it).
But once again, I see your point and I don’t necessarily disagree. And we’re honestly probably just arguing semantics. But that’s why I separate sound quality from sound preference.
1
u/Tenlow85 HD820 800S IE900 HDB630 HD660S2 650 620S 600 550 505 490/480Pro 22h ago
In ANC, sure. In sound quality however…not so much :D
1
u/MetsukiR HDB 630 22h ago
While the XM6 has the best ANC I've ever heard, the sound is super muffled.
3
u/Tenlow85 HD820 800S IE900 HDB630 HD660S2 650 620S 600 550 505 490/480Pro 23h ago
Yes, definitely. The HDB 630 is the best sounding wireless headphone at or below $500, imo. Whether or not you like the more "audiophile" stock sound and approach is an individual thing of course but nevertheless, it is a clear upgrade to the XM3.