>>52575102 >"audiophiles" These people are literally like children. Remember how when we were kids we saw an ad on TV and just HAD to have whatever bullshit product they were advertising? Same thing with "audiophiles".
>>52574984 Put plainly, no. A lot of the "features" advertised are downright stupid, such as frequencies not only above human hearing but above cat and dog hearing. Worry about seeing x-rays, then come back.
Seriously though, having owned electrostatics as well as cheaper $80-100 Sennheisers and some stuff inbetween, the quality depends more on how you like the coloration of the headphones and less on the actual objective "quality", simply because there isn't anywhere else to go. You don't want to go too cheap, but you shouldn't be surprised if you find $100 headphones better sounding than $500+ headphones if you're truly honest with yourself. Anything approximately in the range of good is going to sound better than $5-20 generic crap, but from there on it's all preference.
These two things are what really make a difference: >dirt cheap throwaway product vs anything decent, as mentioned above, and >form factor
>>52574984 The closer any headphone gets to the price of Stax SR009's, the less sense it makes to buy them over the Stax. 009's are around $3,500 and another $1,200 for the amp needed to make them work.
>>52574984 No because there are no good options for these prices. Shitty products with ridiculous price tags. You get better for cheaper. If there were gains in sound quality to be had one could argue that they are woth it. In the case of HE-1000, just hell no.
>>52575065 I think those look anything but flimsy. They want to keep the weight down for comfort reasons of course so the design is not bulky.
>>52575051 >Are any watches worth even $1000? Yes. This is really not that much for a watch. You see those daily on normal people. >Are any Versace's worth $2000? No, unless it's some collectors piece with a lot of value already. >Are any speaker systems worth $10'000? Yes. There are legitimate places where you'll have to dish out that much for a set of speakers if you don't want to compromise quality like for studios or if you just want a really high fidelity system for yourself. Better avoid all the audiophile marketed crap there tho, otherwise you'll be just wasting money. >Are any cars worth $2 million? I'll admit if I were filthy rich I'd pay that much for a few pieces.
>>52575236 >Put plainly, no. A lot of the "features" advertised are downright stupid, such as frequencies not only above human hearing but above cat and dog hearing. They are stupid partly because of that but mostly because that's not at all what those headphones are capable of.
>>52575236 >You don't want to go too cheap, but you shouldn't be surprised if you find $100 headphones better sounding than $500+ headphones if you're truly honest with yourself. Anything approximately in the range of good is going to sound better than $5-20 generic crap, but from there on it's all preference.
Maybe if you output it through your laptop speakers. Most 500$ phones can't even be driven by shit/integrated amps. Low tier headphones sacrifice quality for low impendance. Saying you'll find 100$ headphones on the same level of quality as 500$ (except in rare cases where the latter is really trash, like Beats) is about as ridiculous as saying you can find a 100$ graphics cards that is better than a 500$ one.
>>52575311 So, you have easily justified watches, shoes, speakers and cars, but you can't justify the headphones?
-No mechanical watch is worth $1000. You can buy Chinese replicas, even of automatics, for $10, that perform the main function of a watch (to tell the time accurately) properly. What you are paying for is branding, workmanship, complications, choice of materials and possibly jewellery. Normal people don't wear $1000 watches: they use smartphones, or they have a $50 Swatch which does the job perfectly well. Of course, if you're obnoxious you could spend $100'000- $1 million on a Hublot, Vacheron Constantin, Ulysse Nardin, etc. -Just like the Versace shoes that someone considers a collector's piece, headphones can be collector items, just like the original Orpheii were. Electronics age badly, you say? So does leather. -I will put it to you that for personal use, you will never need to spend $10'000 on a speaker system. Yes, you need high-fidelity speakers if you work in a studio and need accurate sound representation, but the same goes for buying $100-$200 reference headphones. Those speakers aren't going to cost you $10 grand. -So if you were filthy rich you would have no qualms spending the equivalent of a villa for a sports car, but you still couldn't justify overpriced headphones?
>>52575725 You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>52575773 >So, you have easily justified watches, shoes, speakers and cars, but you can't justify the headphones? I were a billionaire with no concept of value, I'd still not pay the 3k for HE-1000 for my personal listening equipment. It has nothing to do with the price at this point, just the fact that you can get better equipment. And for the majority of us who actually have to worry about speding money on nice things, you can get better equipment for less money than almost all of these ridiculously expensive headphones/audio gear generally labeled as "audiophile".
>>52575303 Those headphones he's wearing are like $2000. He says they are the worst in that price range, or something like that. I have no reason not to believe that but jesus christ, he couldn't be more pretentious if he tried.
>>52575820 >better equipment for less money What about spending $100-200 for custom ear pads that perfectly fit your head and ears? Heck, add 3 or 4 variants, providing different levels of noise isolation while you're at it. Or you can get custom molded IEMs for $1000. You can still get better with more money.
>>52575843 These are coming in the mail any day now ;))))
>>52575884 You can get custom molds+IEMs to match for a lot cheaper than $1K, but this is all beyond the point. Yes, you can accessorize for more money, but the point was that more expensive products aren't necessarily higher quality beyond a certain point.
>>52574984 The most expensive bits of listening gear I saw at a recording studio were HD800 headphones and B&W 800 series speakers, which were only used for mastering, the actual recording/mixing gear was much cheaper. Chances are the music you're listening to wasn't even made on gear as good as what some of these audiofools are buying.
>>52575884 >What about spending $100-200 for custom ear pads that perfectly fit your head and ears? Custom earpads are rather pointless. Many large enough pads offer near perfect seal around your ears. Earpads have an effect on the frequency response, too so just getting comfy pads could actually lower fidelity.
>Heck, add 3 or 4 variants, providing different levels of noise isolation while you're at it. Isolation might or might not be preferred. Not what you want from open headphones. Pads alone don't have a large effect on it.
>Or you can get custom molded IEMs for $1000 You get a good fit with those and you don't need to pay out the ass for them either. That said cIEMs have their own set of problems and most cIEMs are awful in terms of performance. Also deep and tight fit ear-canal phones are kind of annoying when you talk or open your mouth. Not a perfect solution or inherently better to an universal fit.
>>52575868 >he couldn't be more pretentious if he tried. It's a joke.
>>52576005 >HD800 headphones and B&W 800 series speakers Given how colored HD 800 is and most B&W 800-series are, I don't get why would anyone want to master with those.
>>52576455 >Given how colored HD 800 is and most B&W 800-series are, I don't get why would anyone want to master with those. Beats the fuck outta me, but I saw what I saw. They seemed pretty well in demand as well, since they always had artists coming in on their floor, so my take away is not to fix what's not broken even if it doesn't seem to make sense. I certainly don't know as much about audio as the producer and engineer there did, so I'm not one to question.
>>52576005 >Chances are the music you're listening to wasn't even made on gear as good as what some of these audiofools are buying. Pro audio treats audiophilia as a joke. Audiophiles spend too much time dicking around with pointless tweaks, some which degrade fidelity.
>>52577094 >do not understand hearing loss. It's not even controversial: as people get older, they lose hearing acuity in the higher frequencies. As to whether this has a sizeable impact on the sound of most music is another question.
>>52577144 >Because earpads quite often audibly shift frequency response They can. But they don't always make that much of difference, and that doesn't get into why there would be difference.
The shaped pads would hopefully minimize leak, bringing the headphone that much closer to driving a ideal pressure chamber, with improved stability of low frequency extension. Pad material, besides affecting leak, has some effect on internal reflections in that lossy pads reduce treble artifacts slightly. Angling of pads or at the driver also helps to keep the driver aimed at the ear, keeping the upper range more stable.
>>52577145 >It's not even controversial: That doesn't mean you understand it.
As you age, there is a general loss of threshold sensitivity, a loss in middle ear compression, and a more focused loss in the top octave, above 10 kHz. Headphone issues pile up in the 5-10kHz range, not much above. This is the case with ED10. Distinguishing characteristics of music are limited above 10-13kHz. An effect on transient character mostly, not that audiophiles seem to understand what a transient is.
>>52577094 >Wine tasters actually go through training and blind tests. Yeah and those blind tests show that wine tasters are consistently unable to replicate their results. In other words, it's a load of bullshit. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545786 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545596 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545711
>>52577395 Compare the performance values and prices of the Bugatti Veyron with the Nissan GTR. Don't forget to consider that it is incredibly difficult to find a place where you could max out the speed of your Veyron.
>>52576976 >That's wrong and makes no sense. If spending 2000$ on a singular headphone is enough to make you believe that it must be better than a headphone costing 10 times less, it's still fine to me.
>>52578714 >http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545711 >An Examination of Judge Reliability at a major U.S. Wine Competition Some of them are consistent, which is more than what can be said for audio. But enough about wines, if you'd like, I can dredge up the relevant audio statistics for you.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.