Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions? - Page 3

post #31 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snag1e View Post

3. That EVERY headphone needs amped to sound good....despite specs saying otherwise.
 

 

Every pair of headphones can benefit from amping because the amp is lowering the output impedance...

post #32 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

 

This is entirely a guess but I would assume that IEM are actually less dangerous than over ear headphones.... Because they use tiny little drivers which move small amounts of air compared to over ears which can move some serious air with larger drivers.... I am not sure if this is correct but it seems logical.... Similar to standing next to a 20" subwoofer at a concert would probably do more damage than an iem at an equivalant sound level?

 

I don't get much ear pain at all from my Shure IEM but the D2000 I had used to give me tinnitus and ear pain very easily... I dont get much problems with my HD650 but they are so boring sounding anyway I am not suprised lol.

 

If anyone with some knowledge of this could tell me I would be very interested to know.... for example which is safer at equal equivalant volume levels :

 

Standing next to a massive speaker

Over ear headphones (I guess open design are safer than closed)

IEM's

 

Assuming they all had the same frequency response...

 

Also what volume level is safe to listen to for long periods with no hearing damage?

umr, i think the opposite is true, its to my understanding that iems can damage your hearing alot more that full sized headphones because they have a smaller area to compress or something... anyway, i think were being ignored because were hijacking the thread... 

post #33 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

1. That specific headphones are only more detailed due to extra treble

2. Headphones are more neutral if they have less treble and are warmer. Extra treble is bad, but being very very warm is perfectly OK!

3. That a neutral and completely flat headphone actually exists..I haven't heard one yet. Every one has some coloration. Instead I will look for what sounds balanced to my ears.

4. That equipment that measures flat all sounds the same. Or that amps are always dead neutral. I sure wish that was true!

5. That FLAC nearly always sounds better than a 190kbps mp3. I'd rather take a good recording in 192kbps any day over a poor recording in FLAC. Well, duh.

6. That a headphone lacks bass, but it's actually just the headphone being accurate to the recording and not screwing it up.

7. That just because you can't hear a difference between cables doesn't mean someone else possibly could.

8. That there is such a thing as a "best" headphone for EVERYONE under $300, $500, $1000 etc. What's best for me is not best for you.

9. That every expensive headphone scales up magically with specific gear. I think people randomly come up with this crap. I'm sure it's true for some headphones.

10. A headphone is automatically easy to drive if it's under 55 ohm.

11. Headphone graphs are very reliable and accurate

12. Bass heavy headphones have little bass bleed.

13. A headphone that costs more is nearly always better.

14. A headphone without a mid-bass hump lacks bass.

15. That if a recording sounds bad, it must be the headphone's fault.

16. That all the popular gear on head-fi is actually the best. Sometimes..

17. Every headphone will sound the same for everyone

18. That the HD-600 is actually very neutral biggrin.gif Pretty close I guess.

19. The bigger the amp the more powerful it is

20. That a computer DAC is like 10x better than a high quality full sized CD player.

21. If you don't have a computer DAC you're not really hearing your fancy headphone.

22. That a 10ohm output jack automatically ruins every headphone with a lower impedance. Yet the person never has tried it.

23. That a receiver is not good for headphones AT ALL. Sometimes they are and sometimes not.

24. That a headphone can't possibly sound much different with other gear. At one point I hated the HD-650 and K702 with the wrong setup (probably colored amp/dac)

25. No such thing as amp/dac synergy

26. That an amp that measures ruler flat is automatically good with every headphone (as long as it can drive it properly).

27. A headphone manufacturer can't change a headphones sound signature without telling us.

28. That the Q701 sounds 100% identical to the K702 normal_smile%20.gif.. or wait the HD-598 sounds the same as the HD-595.

29. That the E9 is a horrible match for anything that costs more than the amp itself!!

 

I agree on most of the things :-)

 

Not that much on those three:

 

3. That a neutral and completely flat headphone actually exists..I haven't heard one yet. Every one has some coloration. Instead I will look for what sounds balanced to my ears.

11. Headphone graphs are very reliable and accurate

22. That a 10ohm output jack automatically ruins every headphone with a lower impedance. Yet the person never has tried it.

 

 - In practice, completely flat FR doesn't mean perfectly neutral in the world of headphones... Speakers =/= headphones here. (but of course, perfect headphones don't exist)

 - Graphs are much more reliable than 95 % of people here... Thus pretty reliable.

 - 10 ohm output with less than 80 ohm impedance phones? Not really if you want precise bass and no added distortion.


Edited by MHOE - 10/9/12 at 12:44pm
post #34 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalVeauX View Post

 

 

 

Hearing 24khz and knowing it's sound from 19khz is dubious. But someone will look at a spec sheet and think the one capable of higher frequencies is better, without ever having listened to it, or knowing that they likely can't even hear that frequency. Simply an example. And when people simply read a review, which is questionable depending on its source and highly dependent on that person's experience and technical knowledge, then start talking about a headphone like they own it and have listened to it for the past 10 years, it becomes problematic as you get this mass of inconsistent information cropping up. It's like someone reading a graph and saying "Get this headphone, it's bassy" when it's not bassy as described by those who actually have listened to it. Again, simply an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is one of my hot button issues, as well. Way too many people allow graphs and charts to determine their subjective assessment of a headphone. 

post #35 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

 

Every pair of headphones can benefit from amping because the amp is lowering the output impedance...

 

Compared to.. what?  Your average iPod out already has an output impedance that would put most boutique high-end amps to shame.

post #36 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

 

Compared to.. what?  Your average iPod out already has an output impedance that would put most boutique high-end amps to shame.

 

Compared to soundcards, DACs, receivers... The lower impedance, the better, always. You want near-to-zero.

post #37 of 201

That there is no difference between an audiophile and a 'music lover' - anyone who wants to improve their listening experience is automatically a persnickety audiophile listening to test tones and other miscellany. Unlike many in this hobby, I take no joy in the baggage around the terminology - John Atkinson is an audiophile, I'm a music lover. 

post #38 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by estreeter View Post

That there is no difference between an audiophile and a 'music lover' - anyone who wants to improve their listening experience is automatically a persnickety audiophile listening to test tones and other miscellany. Unlike many in this hobby, I take no joy in the baggage around the terminology - John Atkinson is an audiophile, I'm a music lover. 

Amen to that one... It might be unfair to single out JA, but I sympathize with your meaning.  I have been guilty of spending time listening to my system and not the music it's playing.  That is my number one pet peeve.

post #39 of 201

I find it annoying that one's latest purchase is by default better than anything else they've had. If I had a dime for every time I've sent a PM to someone after seeing a glowing review of their DAC or amp from 6 months earlier, only to find out they've changed it at least once or twice and what they have for THIS 6 month window is the greatest ever. Some people are addicted to the honeymoon phase, and the minute it wears off they go searching for their next fix. 

post #40 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

Every pair of headphones can benefit from amping because the amp is lowering the output impedance...

I agree that low output impedance is important , but, as pointed out above by TMRaven, many portable players have a low output impedance. Also, how high is acceptable depends a lot on the impedance of the headphone being driven.

1. My $30 sansa clip for instance, has an output impedance of one ohm...that is lower than at least the majority of dedicated headphone amps....


2. There should be little to no audible difference between amps due to to impedance (damping factor, frequency response) as long as ratio of output impedance to headphone impedance is > 1:8.
Edited by Snag1e - 10/9/12 at 2:08pm
post #41 of 201

For all this talk about headphone and amp impedance, it sure doesn't get mentioned at all with electrostatic equipment...

 

There, it's all about bias voltage, voltage swing, slew rate, stuff like that as far as I can tell. I don't know for sure why they consider the Koss E/90 so bad to the point where some ESP/950 owners make Stax Pro bias adapter cables, or what makes the KGSSHV and BHSE so much better than all of Stax's own amps (which are crazy expensive as is)...there are bound to be misconceptions all over the place that I just haven't caught onto yet.

 

All in all, I get the impression that people keep saying that you need amplifiers more expensive than the headphones themselves in order to get the most out of them. It's more questionable with dynamics and orthos because they'll at least work with most sources, but you can't even plug an electrostatic headphone into anything without a transformer box or specialized amp.


Edited by NamelessPFG - 10/9/12 at 2:11pm
post #42 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snag1e View Post


I agree that low output impedance is important , but, as pointed out above by TMRaven, many portable players have a low output impedance. Also, how high is acceptable depends a lot on the impedance of the headphone being driven.
1. My $30 sansa clip for instance, has an output impedance of one ohm...that is lower than at least the majority of dedicated headphone amps....
2. There should be little to no audible difference between amps due to to impedance (damping factor, frequency response) as long as ratio of output impedance to headphone impedance is > 1:8.

 

Of course... I have just said in comparison with soundcards, DACs and receivers, not with some portable sources especially made for low impedance phones.

post #43 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

1}

 

Folks who believe that all amps sound exactly the same. I don't hate the misconception, I hate the audiophile. At times I really think these folks are trolls.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a point I have spent a lot of time thinking about. The problem is that there is a lot of evidence that any differences among amps aren't audibly discernible. Amps, DACs, and cables are usually the gear that has been tested most frequently over the years, and just about every study I've seen had similar results. That being said, I agree with you that a lot of people will take a hardline objectivist stance and go trolling. That's why this site is smart to sort of separate those DBX related discussions from the main board so that people have an area to debate and discuss that aspect of the hobby. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I pay attention to the objective data, but I allow my ears to be the final judge. If I want to go out and spend a few bills on a higher quality amp or try recabling my headphones, then dammit Im going to do it. If there isn't any change then there isn't any change...but this is a hobby for me above all else, not a science experiment. But my main point is that it's hard to argue this as a misconception since there have been so many trials that support the notion. 

post #44 of 201

"How the artist intended." The ONLY way you will kind of hear how the artist "intended" is if you have the exact same setup. And even that isn't an accurate reflection of how an artist wants it to sound. Exactly how they want it to sound is only in their head.

post #45 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Finnely View Post

"How the artist intended." The ONLY way you will kind of hear how the artist "intended" is if you have the exact same setup. And even that isn't an accurate reflection of how an artist wants it to sound. Exactly how they want it to sound is only in their head.

no but you'll notice on high quality headphones and speakers each recording has it's own "flavor" to it and sounds unique. on bad, highly inaccurate ones they all sound fairly similar.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions?