Are the modern orthos approaching perfection? - Page 2

I shouldn't have to say this, but many people on this forum make the weirdest assertions about value. If a product costs less but sounds worse, then one cannot make any declarations about relative value. For instance, if a KSC75 costs less and sounds worse than an HE90, it is neither a better nor worse value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atothex 

I shouldn't have to say this, but many people on this forum make the weirdest assertions about value. If a product costs less but sounds worse, then one cannot make any declarations about relative value. For instance, if a KSC75 costs less and sounds worse than an HE90, it is neither a better nor worse value.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here -- say for example, that you consider the HE90 the finest headphone ever manufactured. It is your headphone ideal. Now say there is a new headphone released, let's call it "headphone X" and it sounds almost identical to the HE90, but has some very subtle differences which though very minor, make "headphone X" sound not quite as perfect to you as the HE90. Now say that "headphone X" costs $500. Wouldn't "headphone X" be a better value than the HE90 even though it "costs less but sounds worse?"

Imo the recording/mastering process needs to improve.  Making clean binaural recordings should imo be the future.   Improving the math behind that, recording techniques ect ect would be a huge improvement even for those who use $5 headphones.

Though considering we are a long ways from people actually appreciating a level of sound above that of their so/so MP3 players with overly compressed music on stock IEMS I guess we can only rely on hardware to deal with crappy software.

Imo the recording/mastering process needs to improve.  Making clean binaural recordings should imo be the future.   Improving the math behind that, recording techniques ect ect would be a huge improvement even for those who use $5 headphones.

Though considering we are a long ways from people actually appreciating a level of sound above that of their so/so MP3 players with overly compressed music on stock IEMS I guess we can only rely on hardware to deal with crappy software.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjikiran 

Imo the recording/mastering process needs to improve.  Making clean binaural recordings should imo be the future.   Improving the math behind that, recording techniques ect ect would be a huge improvement even for those who use $5 headphones.

 

Though considering we are a long ways from people actually appreciating a level of sound above that of their so/so MP3 players with overly compressed music on stock IEMS I guess we can only rely on hardware to deal with crappy software.

hell yes

the quality and mastering of the recording is the beginning of the chain. it makes the largest difference in sound quality. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rymd 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjikiran 

Imo the recording/mastering process needs to improve.  Making clean binaural recordings should imo be the future.   Improving the math behind that, recording techniques ect ect would be a huge improvement even for those who use $5 headphones.

 

Though considering we are a long ways from people actually appreciating a level of sound above that of their so/so MP3 players with overly compressed music on stock IEMS I guess we can only rely on hardware to deal with crappy software.

hell yes

the quality and mastering of the recording is the beginning of the chain. it makes the largest difference in sound quality. 
 

No matter how good the technology becomes the one constant there will always be good and bad recordings no matter what. There was a time that vinyl was so much better than CD now I find on well recorded CD I prefer them over vinyl. Bass reproduction on digital is so much better and now the gear has improved over early digital that most of the noise and nastiness is gone. Now we deal with compression. The new nightmare in modern recordings

Early digitals were bad because sound engineers were treating them like analog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagothur 

Early digitals were bad because sound engineers were treating them like analog.

 

Audiophile urban legend.  Some were bad, some were great.  I have a lot of great CDs I bought in the mid 80s that have since been poorly remastered.  I also heard plenty of crappy LPs back in the day.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here -- say for example, that you consider the HE90 the finest headphone ever manufactured. It is your headphone ideal. Now say there is a new headphone released, let's call it "headphone X" and it sounds almost identical to the HE90, but has some very subtle differences which though very minor, make "headphone X" sound not quite as perfect to you as the HE90. Now say that "headphone X" costs $500. Wouldn't "headphone X" be a better value than the HE90 even though it "costs less but sounds worse?"

Cost vs. Return ratio is far better, that's for sure.  For example, I have a pair of Denon D7000s.  I love them more than any other headphone I've heard.  They cost me $600 new (sweet online deals for the win).  Are they only half as good as the T1 or HD800s?  Even at retail price of $1000, are they half as good as Stax's flagship headphone?  No, to both questions.  My m50s aren't 20% of the quality of my D7000s, either.  They're probably more like 75%.  It all depends on what you need from the headphone.

Lighter weight but powerful magnet will be developed. Thinner diaphragm using different materials. More efficient. Improved manufacturing, consistency and yield should bring down the cost and hopefully passed on to the consumers. These really depend on demand.

What if someone comes up with an active crossover for headphones?