>Only ever used £30 headphones all my life >See all these

File: 4L_WfUsygoB.jpg (16KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 259x194px

>>61042470

>>61042470
>Literally no difference apart from a wider soundstage and being slightly clearer.
That's literally the difference anon.

What the fuck did you expect if not wider soundstage and more clarity and seperation? Unless you're specifically buying nigger bass headphones you got exactly what you should expect.

>>61042470

After you leave the £100 mark you are getting not much in return for casual (non-pro) use.

>>61042470
What headphones did you buy?

>>61042533
Wider soundstage is definitely there purely because they're open backed compared to the in ears / closed backed headphones I'd used before.
Increased clarity is almost at placebo levels though, the way audiophiles obsess over high end gear I was expecting a significant improvement.
I was expecting to be blown away listening to the same songs I'd listened to hundreds of times on cheap headphones before but the difference wasn't all that great.

>>61042587
HD 779's
Don't get me wrong, they're good headphones and are build better / comfier than anything else I've owned, I just expected more from high end headphones in general considering all the hype surrounding them.

>>61042470
>>Literally no difference apart from the difference
Yeah anon... You don't sound logical.

>>61042635
>HD 779's
That's not a thing. Do you mean the DT 770? Or maybe the HD 700?

>>61042678
Whoops, typo, *579

>>61042693
>>61042635
>buying sennheiser and expecting better sound

lol

>>61042635
>the way audiophiles obsess over high end gear I was expecting a significant improvement.
You got low level gear and expected $1000+ performance

>>61042470
he fell for the meme
everyone point at him and laugh hahahaha
orson_welles_laugh.png

>>61042838
>muh biasness
Sennheiser is good, especially the upper range headphones

>>61042693
That's not even mid range

>>61042470
>not waiting for a sale to buy $400+ headphones at a significantly lower cost
>expecting ~$200 headphones to be good when nigger bass brands like Beats sell around that area

>>61042693
>150+ for low end headphones
Lmao, someone jewed you hard
Should have went to /hpg/ for a rec lol

>>61043067
You can get a k7xx for $200 which are great

File: 1483052239768.png (233KB, 568x590px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 568x590px

>use $30 gaymen headset for years
>buy $250 headphones
>barely any difference
>literally just fit more snugly and blocks more outside noise
>maybe ever so slightly clearer, could be placebo
>inb4 deaf or 120kbps music
I have very good hearing (19-20KHz) and I only use flac and high bitrate opus.

>>61043281
$20 says you're using an on board Amp/DAC

>using any other cans than hd 25's

>>61043302
Fiio e10k. I also tried my onboard alc1220 which is currently the best onboard audio that exists and I noticed absolutely no difference.

Audiofags riddle me this.
You pride you speakers on having perfect playback of tones in a range. But you don't set up many speakers to play tones from a small segment of the range.
I bring this up because in music there's always more than one tone to be represented.

It's always a sub, speaker and tweeters. The tone overlaps are apparent, yet you never do anything to correct the issue.
Speakers can only move in one direction at a single instant.

Audiopedophiles are mentally ill degenerates.

>>61043281
>>61042470
You didn't even fall for the marketing meme, you are just stupid.
Buy yourselves some sound interfaces.
Hell, I got a $50 x-fi Go! Pro for gaming and even with that my HD665 and HD662 Superlux headphones sound amazingly clear and powerful.
Keep in mind my motherboard already has some fancy ass Dolby bullshit in it.

>>61043341
Wew a low end amp DAC combo and your integrated sound?

Well you're right, that's end game. No where to go from there. Audiophiles confirmed BTFO.

>>61043359
>no difference in sound between $30 headphones + onboard from 2012 and $250 headphones + $80 dollar DAC or best onboard audio
What a joke. Anyone who spends more than $500 on audio is delusional.

>>61043347
>yet you never do anything to correct the issue.
Says who?
there are plenty of people who have stupid expensive 14+ channel speaker setups in dedicated listening rooms with specific care taken to place the speakers so the optimal listening position is centered in the room, etc etc.

Just because you've never experienced it or know someone who has doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>61043390
Yes, but the majority of you are fapping over $100 DAC's and $200 headphones.
It doesn't add up.

>>61042470
No shit, you need the $600 pair to even begin hearing the difference

>>61043352
>Accuses other people of falling for memes
>Admits that he fell for the biggest meme going

>>61043529
SBX's virtual surround sound is by far the best on the market. And the Crystalizer makes a difference I can't replicate on my APO config, at least not competently.

>>61043552
Nice meme.

>>61043347
>Speakers can only move in one direction at a single instant.
So can your eardrum.

>>61042470
inb4 you have shitty cuck headphones

>>61042850
$1000 performance is the same as $10 performance

File: 123508484373.jpg (193KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 750x600px

>>61043567
They're pressure sensitive. When not emitting a tone because of a down bass trumping a 15k request, you're missing out on a slight up shift.

>>61043067
Almost like beats are overpriced and offer way worse sound quality than their pricepoint

>>61043578
Lol how does it feel knowing you have garbage hearing ability?

If you can't hear the differnce between $10 headphones and $1000 headphones you're literally mentally ill.

File: 1497889730549-fit.png (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>/g/ always goes on about good headphones
>all you need is (insert amp and headphones for $400 here)
>Here I am still enjoying my Skullcandy Yeah Gen 1 headphones.

$50 well spent for headphones I've had and use heavily on the daily. They sound great plugged into my V20 with quad dac. Maybe I'm just missing out and have no idea but I feel I would just be deluding myself if I dropped $350-$400 on audio gear.

>>61043612
And a speaker creates pressure, I don't see your point.
A single speaker diaphragm can produce vibrations from a signal comprised of multiple tones, your eardrum is then another diaphragm that receives that vibration and lets you hear the multiple tones that made the original signal.

File: 1027911834195.jpg (47KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x480px

>>61043662
>rated 23,000 Hz
>expect it to do shifts in order of 130,000hz.
You're stupid.

>>61043662
using more channels gives greater separation and clarity to the individual tones. Using fewer channels means you're trying to push those same tones through less speakers requiring each channel to attempt to compensate by providing the other tones, however this can never be done without losing clarity since you're having the same driver attempt to deliver multiple tones at varying frequencies. Having only 2 speaker channels will be far less clear sounding than having 12+ channels.

File: nice.png (5KB, 570x533px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 570x533px

>>61043642
Good because I don't waste thousands of dollars on placebos.

>literally no difference apart from better sound
wow that is a good post OP

>>61043719
>placebos
Not even Bose are placebo. Go spew your poorfag bullshit on reddit instead.

>>61043704
But your eardrum is a single diaphragm, not 12 different ones for each frequency range.
Wouldn't any extra clarity achieved by having separate speakers all be lost when they have to combine together to vibrate your eardrum?

>>61043734
>/r/audiophile user mad about normal people not wasting money
loving every laugh

>>61043766
You waste money when you buy toilet paper and toothpaste, too.
I can only wish you cure your cognitive dissonance and start enjoying your hobbies.

>>61043745
You're forgetting how sound travels in space. The aim of any audofag should be for the realist tone to be played, so that it bounces around the room to be canceled out naturally.
Not removed by default because that playback device can't physically deliver the noise.
By having it happen naturally it gets to interact with the other tones, to cancel out or boost them. As how physics work.

>>61043766
>why do separate dishes taste better than a mixed stodge when you only have one mouth

>>61043745
>>61043840

>>61043803
This has to be bait, you aren't serious are you?

>>61043893
I am completely serious, poorfag.

>>61043910
I don't believe you. Nobody with enough of a brain to use the internet could come up with such a horrible analogy.

File: 1429263839623.png (211KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 327x316px

>>61042470
>Bought 50 pairs of dollar store headphones on sale for 1$ a pair 7 years ago.
>Talking to normie about high quality headphones.
>Normie proceeds to show me how """good""" it is.
>mfw no sound difference.

>>61043969
Funny because that's exactly how stupid you sounded.

>>61043979
>being happy he has shit ears

What a world

File: woj.png (91KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 633x758px

>>61042470
>tfw fell for the audiophile meme

>>61043840
Dumb analogy, you have multiple taste buds and separate dishes are consumed at different times.
Listening to audio from multiple speakers is essentially going to become "mixed stodge" once it enters your ear canal.

>>61044057
Do you think movie theater audio is garbage?

Dolby atoms theaters have like 20 discreet audio channels

File: 1463372595272.jpg (34KB, 600x564px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x564px

>>61042470
Thanks OP I almost fell for the audiophile meme and bought hd600.
Those fucking jews know the weak point of NEETs is anime so they always make their threads with an anime pic.

>>61044002
Let me add.
>let him listen to a track on mine.
>exclaims "HOW MUCH WERE THESE???!?!!?!? WHAT BRAND IS THIS?!?!?!?!".

If you knew how electroacoustic devices of ANY sort work, you'd understand the difference between materials makes an improvement so minute, it doesn't even matter.

>>61044057
See >>61043825
Fluid dynamics bitch!

>>61044092
Lol I love kids who think they know what they're talking about after a few minutes of research.

File: audiophile.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>61042470
Why are audiophiles so retarded?

>>61044072
No, but the cost of that setup is significantly more than any headphones I have ever tried.
In a theatre you obviously have to use speakers and have multiple of them to create a surround sound effect because giving everyone headphones is impractical.
Just because theatres use speakers for practical reasons, it doesn't necessarily mean that a high end pair of headphones with a binaural / software surround sound recording wouldn't sound as good.

Obviously headphones are never going to be able to create the effect of a powerful subwoofer but that's a physical limitation rather than multiple speakers being objectively better.

File: e0b.jpg (105KB, 936x536px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 936x536px

>>61044122
>Lol
back to >>>/r/audiophile
Best thing is, you had no point to counteract mine, so I believe I'm right.
How to win an online argument when you have no points:
>Proceed to bash the reliance of their information.
>Use "lol", "heh", or "xd", in order to make it seem like you weren't serious, and this totally isn't making your blood boil.
>Disregard the opponents' point.

There is literally nothing, NOTHING that makes brand name headphones superior to cheap ones. Sure, materials might be MARGINALLY better, but there is no noticeable difference.

>>61044193
Lmao can you actually not hear a difference in headphones? This is blowing my mind.

Soundstage, separation, highs, lows, etc. If you think it's all the same across the board and even when it is different it's not actually noticeably different I can ONLY assume your hearing is damaged.

File: 1414354111685.jpg (76KB, 500x484px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x484px

>buy two thousand dollar headphone amp and three thousand dollar pair of headphones
>immediate buyers remorse once they arrive

you always think just one more thing you buy will make you happy... but it never does.

File: 1379998125190.jpg (18KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 125x125px

>>61044245
You just proved yourself a retard by saying sound stage.
That's not what the argument was about.

>>61044193
Other than, you know, frequency responses and other such objective information.

>>61044269
Does it sound good though anon?

>>61044272
>acthually I won on a technicality since soundstage is more of an aspect of open vs closed design.

Fuck off moron, this was a bait thread to begin with

>>61044286

Yes it sounds nice, but the experience of owning a high end tube amp and end game headphones is not as satisfying as I thought it would be... if anything its made me just want more and to go further.. which is ridiculous.

File: Revolver Ocelot.jpg (58KB, 500x470px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x470px

>>61044288
Not even that guy. I'm >>61043347
>>61043442
>>61043612
>>61043692
>>61043825
>>61044103

Yes frequency response, yadada ect are all good things, strange how you lose those specs in high cost models tho.

>being that deaf

Also, you bought shit headphones. The difference is huge going from cheap stuff to good ones. But, you are gonna notice it in a week, or two. That's when you finally start appreciating good headphones. After that time, try again the cheap ones and tell me if they sound the same.

>>61044326
>lose those specs
The only thing you lose is an undefined and bloated sub-250hz range. Even then, there are high-cost low-impedance headphones you can get and slightly tweak them with an EQ.
Unlike a cheap pair of headphones you need to spend hours on to make them produce something not painful.

>>61044336
Maybe it takes a while to get accustomed to the better quality but I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.
The noticeable difference isn't instant so you're not really getting a better experience than before, you're just slowly increasing your expectations so that what sounded good before now sounds bad.

>>61044380

It's just how your brain works. You just get used to shit and then think it's fine. It's the same with food, when people that are used to eat fast food and cheap ass things, if you give to them some really fancy, high quality meal they are going to think it's not really good, or even dislike it.

>>61044378
It's because they're playing to soft tones you dim fuck. All audiophiles turn down their 12k. Recuse they have 'sensitive' ears. Confusing it with an accute sense of hearing.
>sub 250hz doesn't matter
Fuck off you mindless drone. You can hear in that range.

>>61044447
>all audiophiles
I'm an audiophile and I don't do that, strangely. But it sure feels good hearing a kickdrum thump instead of bloop.

>>61042470
My Beyerdynamic DT770Pro's cost me something like £130 and I've loved them from the moment I first got them. Blow the old £20 - £30 headphones I used to buy right out of the water.
Yes, the basic sound you hear is still the same basic sound, but being able to hear some of the smaller details that got drowned out before, having a much more respectable level of bass without being ghetto nigger shit... and the clarity in other ranges.

I wouldn't pay more than that, definitely not £170, but £130 for a pair of headphones which I've owned since... November '13.
They are, without a doubt, one of the best purchases I've made.

>>61042470
Don't you need to install a soundcard to get the most out of everything? I'm sure there won't be a huge difference anyway though.

>deaf people who listen to shit tier nigger bass music bragging about being poor and deaf

You never cease to amaze me /g/

>>61044483
Exactly. Not every audiophile is a neurotic placebophile. Some people ((((enjoy)))) having nice setups and enjoy listening to music.

File: 536fe9f97738a2890d34c8277a3ab261.png (500KB, 547x607px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 547x607px

mfw audiophiles are the wine connoisseurs of technology.

>pretend they have refined ears.
>think they can tell apart headphones "hm, yes, indeed, that's a...hmmm.. that's a pair of Sennheisers', 600hd, 2016, yes, yes."
>annoying as fuck elititsts.

Topkek /g/.

File: 1495404892429.png (11KB, 411x387px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 411x387px

>>61042635
>sennheiser

>>61045353
Literally no one does this. Headphones have different sound signatures, but year of manufacturer means nothing.

File: shekel.jpg (195KB, 791x568px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 791x568px

>>61042470
>Buying something
Spotted the problem.

>>61043352
>my HD665 and HD662 Superlux headphones sound amazingly clear and powerful.

Headphones cannot sound "powerful".

>>61043347
What the absolute fuck are you talking about? You do know what phase is, right? Jesus Christ.

File: 1493230895604.jpg (88KB, 650x762px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 650x762px

>>61042470
good goy

>>61044269
Doesn't that mean you're just financially insecure?

>>61044420
That's a good way of looking at it I guess.
Kind of the same way console players used to say they couldn't see a difference with 60FPS or that it made them feel sick.

>>61043281
>I have very good hearing (19-20KHz)
>tfw you have below 18KHz hearing
Can I do something to improve it?

>>61048444
Hearing loss is gradual and unavoidable, but accelerated by being exposed to extremely loud noises and music.

There may be treatments in the future to restore hearing but it's probably far off.

>>61048444

Not directly related, but I'm following research about tinnitus like an autist but literally nothing happens. No one seems to give a fuck about hearlets.

File: 1498245218608.jpg (351KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1536x2048px

Sooo what are some top quality 30£ headphones

File: Wasting Money on Junk.jpg (57KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1280x720px

>>61043037
>That's not even mid range