Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions? - Page 5

That cost has anything to do with performance. I don't care how technically capable a headphone is, if I hate the sound of the HD800 then it's worth any more than $5 earbuds. Enjoyment > Cost

Edited by Slaughter - 10/9/12 at 9:13pm

IMO 95% of head-fi posters are more just "headphone collectors" than audiophiles. Nothing wrong with that though.

 

The term audiophile is used in a very loose/slang way on here compared to other audio forums. Audiophiles definitely don't hate equalizers or they wouldn't spend tens of thousands of dollars on them.

 

I myself am not an "audiophile". I'm a hobby recording studio builder and someone who loves music and plays multiple instruments but I don't own anything truly "audiophile grade" nor plan to unless I win the lottery. As I posted earlier in the thread, even the $300 I spent on K 702s still seems ridiculous to me in a way.

 

Have you seen REAL audiophile systems which would be considered respectable/impressive by the audiophile culture? We're talking $100,000+. Our mythical HD800s and Stax literally cost less than many "audiophile grade" 4 ft speaker cables.

 

I guess that's the only thing that irks me on head-fi. I just read through most posts even if they disagree with me and absorb the info but man, guys with Audio-Technicas/AKGs/Ultrasones/whatever flaunting their stratospheric audiophilia over Beats owners. That's just funny. They're headphones.

Edited by machoboy - 10/9/12 at 8:31pm

" hearing the original recording ..."

This, especially the last part. Everyone wants headphones for different reasons, beats are just another set of headphones that are liked by many. Just don't buy them -____-;

 

Also I dislike that people assume I hate/think I'm better than everyone that has or enjoys beats.

 

I guess also the overall sense of smugness around here.

 

Yeah, an EQ isn't going to do much for transient response/"speed", soundstage/imaging, isolation, comfort, durability, or the other numerous characteristics that headphones/earbuds/IEMs/etc. have, just frequency response.

 

All in all, frequency response is just one aspect to sound presentation. A lot of people tend to overlook that. And even then, non-sound-related factors like comfort and build quality are still of high importance. You don't want your expensive headphones to break easily or be so uncomfortable that you can barely put up with them after a few minutes, right?

I'd agree with this. While I haven't spent *tons* of time with Beats, I think HiFiGuy's statement that they're good for what they're meant to be is probably pretty spot-on. And I don't have to explicitly hate people who appreciate that, just because I'm not one of them. The general snob appeal that goes into "audiophilia" in general is kind of in there as well - it's just sickening after a while.

I've actually seen a number of posts (and posters) that would disagree with you here, and say that sound quality trumps anything else, and poor build quality, comfort, etc should be secondary or tertiary concerns as long as it sounds good.

I, however, agree with you.

 

Well to be fair, most of the beats-bashing is intended as a warning to unsuspecting buyers. I would appreciate it if someone saved me from paying $300 for $20 headphones.

 

My point was more that NONE OF THE ABOVE are in the "audiophile" realm, few headphones are and headphones are at most a novelty/side trinket in that hobby/culture. People on head-fi exaggerate just how big the difference between any of them is because they become headphone collectors, not audiophiles, headphone collectors.

Edited by machoboy - 10/9/12 at 9:04pm

 

It goes beyond headphones - it's guys with 30K cartridges mounted on 15K tonearms living in a basement and agonising over whether their new cable really IS everything the maker claims. I'm not objecting to that level of obsession, simply saying THAT is my personal image of an 'audiophile', not someone with a decent mid-fi setup in the living room. I spent a lot of time in my garden over a ten year period, lovingly tending my rainforest plants - that didn't make me a horticulturalist nor a botanist : it made me an enthusiast. Some will say its just semantics, but many of those folk would never spend 30K on a cartridge, even if they had that kind of money - the fanatics will always find the money.  To go back to my gardening example, one of the guys I knew bought the block of land opposite his house, itself an acre of rainforest magnificence which just happened to have a house on it. So why buy another block of land ? Because his trees meant he couldnt grow a particular species of Australian plant - now that is a fanatic.

Yeah but at what point does this become a True Scotsman? Because I think you've already gotten there, but that's me.

estreeter,

lol.

 

Isn't "how the artist intended" more likely being there, with the musicians, enjoying the music as it's played and the capability of men and women to produce works of auditory art without the aid of a producer? Otherwise, as cel said, it's how the producers intended. For me, experiencing music in more personal venues set up to showcase the music do so much more to help me appreciate and enjoy music than anything I've heard through a pair of headphones.

 

Maybe I just need more expensive headphones.

 

 

Otherwise, I'm still too new to the Hi-Fi game to have developed any serious gripes with audiophile arguments. The OP mentioned the only one I'd thought of on reading the title.

Edited by BBEG - 10/9/12 at 10:33pm

 

I happen to be one of those posters.

 

Sound quality isn't everything (or the only thing).  But if it doesn't sound good, then no amount of comfort, or build quality, or good looks are going to make up for it.

 

Let me put it this way, you wouldn't use a condom that doesn't work well - no matter how well it fits, how solid it appears to be, or what pretty colors it comes in.  If it is dismal in performing its primary function, then it is a lesser tool.

 

Having said that, it should be clear to all that sounding good is a subjective matter.  And no one should be held in lesser or greater esteem based on something so subjective or personal.

I agree that it has to sound at least "good" and fit well, but if it's painful to wear it's kind of pointless to discuss. How are the children supposed to learn to read if they can't even fit into the building?

The question is, what's the threshold between "good enough" and "unacceptable" when talking about sound quality?

a true scotsman is neither an self-proclaimed audiophile-who-isn't-actually-an-audiophile-by-most-definitions nor a victim of beats marketing, he is just an adept headphonesman

Edited by machoboy - 10/9/12 at 11:42pm

Does it sound good enough to you?