hello all. i have noticed while being on these forums that headphones like the grado sr60, shure srh440/srh840, and audio technica ath m50/ ath ad7000 etc are all praised as being bang for the buck and better then headphones costing so much more money. i really think this is a little strange that all of these headphones are praised as being bang for the buck but when you get headphones that are not bang for buck they are considered overpriced. bose, klipsch, and monster are all considered overpriced when the ones i mentioned are considered under priced.
i think headphones like the audio technica ath m50 and shure srh440/840 are actually what you guys expect for the money but over judge them for being bang for buck considering all the mainstream companies which you compare them to and deem overpriced. i really think a lot of what is said on this forum is just snake oil. do you really notice a difference other then sound signature? i tried the sony mdr zx700 ($100) at the sony store and i didn't hear much if any at all difference between my shure srh840. i am not saying my shure srh840 is bad. it is far from it but i think people here over rate them. there is many good headphones that even get disregarded here. i have some pioneer se m390 headphones and practically no one here know what they are. yet they are bang for the buck apparently.
i hope you can take this observation seriously and thin about it. how many of you buy headphones and are actually convinced they are better? or how many of you actually are influenced by placebo effect. i feel the latter has a more significant impact then you all would like to admit.
please discuss this intelligently amongst yourselves. i am curious to see what you all have to say.