I haven't messed with EQ on my 8XX. I'd be glad to try it out sometime soon and report back if you're truly interested. I'm a bit of a purist for the most part, except for my DT990. I appreciate the differences in the way my headphones sound and I like to swap them out depending on my mood. I do kind of wish I'd spent a little more on the 800S just because of all of the talk about how much better it is, but I find the 8XX to be fun in its own way. There's a lot of criticism of the 4-5dB scoop in the upper mids, which can make vocals sound a little distant, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the peaky treble on the 560S that nobody else seems to be bothered about. I think people were hoping the 8XX would be more like the 6XX where there was actually very little change in the sound from the 650, and the disappointment really soured the 8XX.

I have the 8XX, which is the bastard half-brother of the 800S that the audiophile community keeps locked in a closet under the stairs, and while the 560S is a technically impressive headphone, the 8XX easily bests it in every category of technical performance (and I like the sound profile too, but that's controversial). I suspect the 800S will really impress you, especially since you're listening to classical music.

BUT the question of whether it's worth it is different than whether it's better. It's 10X more expensive. Headphones are a product of diminishing returns, and you will probably not think the 800S sounds 10X better than the 560S. But it might sound 2X or even 3X as good to you. What you could always do is save up the money, and buy a set from somewhere with a good return policy. If you're not blown away, send them back and be happy with your 560S.

Midnights is a beautifully engineered album and it really does allow a capable headphone to strut its stuff.

Charts are fine. They give you at least something of a sense of what you're buying before you buy it. But there are three things about headphones culture that really annoy me right now:

1. Treating any deviation from the Harman target as a sonic defect that must be corrected rather than appreciated as the flavor of that headphone.

2. Referring to the Harman target and headphones that fit it well as "neutral" when that is clearly V-shaped. Neutral is flat, damnit.

3. Publishing frequency response graphs that are normalized to the Harman target. I guess this is done to allow one to pretend that V-shaped is neutral?

I don't understand why a person would EQ every headphone to Harman. Why even have multiple headphones? This is like the people who just want everything chocolate-flavored all the time and will invariably choose a chocolate ice cream over the hundreds of other available flavors. Hey, chocolate is tasty, but sometimes I want vanilla, or strawberry, or pistachio.