Most overrated headphones? - Page 39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kukuk 

Anyway, the ATH-M50's are still the reigning king of overrated headphones. I don't think they will ever be topped.

Even by any Ultrasone model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by electropop 

 

Even by any Ultrasone model?

Even as highly recommended as Ultrasones are, they still aren't recommended nearly as much as the M50's, and certainly don't get the same outrageous claims the M50's get. The whole "I've owned headphones that cost 2-3 times as much as the M50's, and they still weren't half as good as them!" shtick.

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by electropop 

 

Even by any Ultrasone model?

the difference is that ultrasone deserves all the praise. ATH M50 doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishcabible 

 

Uhh...yeah we can agree to disagree. 

 

Did anyone actually like the Image One?

lol, yes we can . If you are talking about the Klipsch Image One, then no. Better options for the price.

Sunjigglet why did you edit your post? I was just about to agree with you. Lol.

I don't know, the SR-60 is possibly a bit overrated to me, in the sub $100 category. Of the few other headphones I heard in that category, the SR-60 was my least favourite. Now, I haven't heard every can in that range obviously, but all I'm saying is out of the four or five I've heard the SR-60 was my least favourite. Which I know, isn't saying much. But with the way it was raved about on here, at least a few years ago, you might have thought it was the greatest sub $100 can. Which, it may or may not be, depending on who you are.

In fact, odd to see the K240 Studio mentioned up a couple posts. This was the headphone that re-ignited my headphone passion. When I heard these compared to the SR-60 I had for the years before, I knew there was so much better. To me the K240 was superior in every way to the SR-60, except maybe tightness of bass. That's just me though, just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich 


So headphones you like aren't over-rated even when they're hyped and shilled, but headphones you dislike don't get that same courtesy extended? Just making sure we're all understanding the rules of the game.
I think that Ultrasone headphones, at least a few of them (and Ultrasone's own marketing schtick) is certainly a shill/hype machine in action. Especially as you get into the ultra expensive leagues. I mean how many magazines have flat-out said the Edition 8 and 9 are the "flattest headphones ever made" or similar insane claims that they couldn't hope to substantiate in ten lifetimes.
I also agree with BrownBear's point on the SR-60. LOTS of commercial praise - I think the issue is that most of those rave reviews are from what? like 1995? and back then what did it really compete with? I don't think anyone has gone back and tried to compare it to a lot of more modern headphones, especially given the (apparent) shift in modern tastes towards excessive amounts of bass.

I like both the M50 and Ultrasone HFI 580. I have lots and lots of experience with both, and the Ultrasone 580 is a better headphone than the m50, and people can back me up on this, and the M50s are even more praised than the 580s. It is a huge sign that the M50s are overrated.  PRO and edition models are a bit overrated and overpriced, but agree that the HFI line is reasonably priced and reasonably praised.

580 doesn't really have any technical merits over the M50, though.  In fact it's more of just a different headphone than a flat out better headphone.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMRaven 

580 doesn't really have any technical merits over the M50, though.  In fact it's more of just a different headphone than a flat out better headphone.  

I don't really feel this is the case. I think the HFI-580's do in fact offer a better sound, while still being in the same sound signature. Both have somewhat heavy-handed bass and treble, but the difference is that the HFI-580's have less recessed mids. (Actually, the mids aren't just "less recessed", but are quite nice.)

And while the HFI-580's have more bass with bass heavy music, I also feel they are less bassy with music that isn't bass heavy. The M50's, to my ears, added bass that wasn't there, not the case with the HFI-580's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kukuk 

 

I don't really feel this is the case. I think the HFI-580's do in fact offer a better sound, while still being in the same sound signature. Both have somewhat heavy-handed bass and treble, but the difference is that the HFI-580's have less recessed mids. (Actually, the mids aren't just "less recessed", but are quite nice.)

 

And while the HFI-580's have more bass with bass heavy music, I also feel they are less bassy with music that isn't bass heavy. The M50's, to my ears, added bass that wasn't there, not the case with the HFI-580's.

I honestly can't say I ever thought the ultrasone was the flatter of the two-- it struck me as rather u-shaped when I heard them, but I havn't done extensive head to head comparisons of the two, so I'll yield to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich 


Ah, now I see your point. +1 man!
I thought you were arguing that *all* Ultrasone headphones represented a solid value and that there was no hanky-panky going on in hyping them up. But...you aren't. Should also qualify that I've not heard the M50, but see them suggested *constantly* (I've never heard an AT that I particularly cared for); sort of like the AH-D2000 - it's a "cureall" suggestion. And I would agree that the less expensive Ultrasones DO represent a good headphone.
Should finally explain that yet again sarcasm has not translated through text - really need to just tag those comments.

lol. :D Yeah exactly. $2800 for the Edition 10 is just craziness.