Battle Of The Flagships (57 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: Ultimate Ears UERM added (4/14/13) - Page 156

I think the rule of thumb for summit-fi now is that any headphone that does not explicitly encourage huge investment (both in terms of money and mind) into upstream gear as well as general technical audiophile / snake-oil knowledge, is not considered as summit-fi.

So it is more about the commitment one needs to give to a particular headphone in question, that determines whether or not the gear is considered top of the line; NOT about the performance or raw costs of headphones.

I guess from a discussion point of view that is fair, it puts a neat dividing line between casual audiophile hobbyists and the more hardcore types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelli 

 

Who cares?  Whether or not it is classified as "High End" doesn't change the sound.  I love my LCD-2s and I know there are many more who do as well.  Hell, they are ranked #12 on this thread.  If you are tired of listening to the haters, turn your headphones up! 

Agreed, I don't care about where they put them, I just do not agree with the mentality. If the category would be Ultra High-End, well yes...it should not be there, but in high end it sure has a place. Who sets the price limit?

I have listened to a 7k vaughan site by side to a 2k burson conductor and the differences were minor, actually preferred conductor in some aspects, and I am sure that some people owning vaughan or gear in that price category would say that Burson Counductor is not high end or the differences are enormous, without actually blind testing them both.

Beyond a level, It is very easy to be thrown into psychoacoustic . Blind testing in these cases would show this.

And if it is a price issue, I don't know why other headphones still in the high end category.... In Europe hd800 is the same price as lcd2, even cheaper .

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerg 

I think the rule of thumb for summit-fi now is that any headphone that does not explicitly encourage huge investment (both in terms of money and mind) into upstream gear as well as general technical audiophile / snake-oil knowledge, is not considered as summit-fi.

 

So it is more about the commitment one needs to give to a particular headphone in question, that determines whether or not the gear is considered top of the line; NOT about the performance or raw costs of headphones.

 

I guess from a discussion point of view that is fair, it puts a neat dividing line between casual audiophile hobbyists and the more hardcore types.

 

Ok....that seems a rather good explanation, but the rules are kind of foggy and the existing rules should apply to all headphones from High-End . They can put it anywhere, I don't care, but they should apply the rules to all of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe 

Agreed, I don't care about where they put them, I just do not agree with the mentality. If the category would be Ultra High-End, well yes...it should not be there, but in high end it sure has a place. Who sets the price limit?

 

I have listened to a 7k vaughan near a 2k burson conductor and the differences were minor, actually preferred conductor in some aspects, and I am sure that some people owning vaughan or gear in that price category would say that Burson Counductor is not high end or the differences are enormous, without actually blind testing them both.

 

Beyond a level, It is very easy to be thrown into psychoacoustic . Blind testing in these cases would show this.

 

And if it is a price issue, I don't know why other headphones still in the high end category.... In Europe hd800 is the same price as lcd2, even cheaper .

 

 

 

Ok....that seems a rather good explanation, but the rules are kind of foggy and the existing rules should apply to all headphones from High-End .

The problem with head-fi is that people tend to over exaggerate small tiny differences making it seem like it is night and day, and then when you actually go and compare and listen yourself the differences could actually be trivial. In the end you must try the equipment yourself to see if they are worth the upgrade over what you have, I don't believe in spending money in things where the change or improvement is so small that you literally have to strain your ears till your eyes pop out to hear it, I believe spending money on upgrades, whether it the the headphone, amp, etc should have a clear and noticeable improvement. I wish there were more audio stores in America, meet conditions are suboptimal (people talking,etc. very distracting).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe 

Agreed, I don't care about where they put them, I just do not agree with the mentality. If the category would be Ultra High-End, well yes...it should not be there, but in high end it sure has a place. Who sets the price limit?

 

I have listened to a 7k vaughan site by side to a 2k burson conductor and the differences were minor, actually preferred conductor in some aspects, and I am sure that some people owning vaughan or gear in that price category would say that Burson Counductor is not high end or the differences are enormous, without actually blind testing them both.

 

Beyond a level, It is very easy to be thrown into psychoacoustic . Blind testing in these cases would show this.

 

And if it is a price issue, I don't know why other headphones still in the high end category.... In Europe hd800 is the same price as lcd2, even cheaper .

 

 

 

Ok....that seems a rather good explanation, but the rules are kind of foggy and the existing rules should apply to all headphones from High-End . They can put it anywhere, I don't care, but they should apply the rules to all of them.

Of course they should. I bet LCD2 and HE500s are more like anomalies in the summit-fi forum, because they offer end-game performance without any fuss or picky upstream requirements.

Before they were introduced, there may have been a clear line between casual hobbyists and full-fledged audiophiles by nature, since almost all top headphones needed a lot of dedication and additional $$$ investment to sound half-way good.

But after they were introduced, that line is blurred.

My guess/prediction? There will be a whole lot more headphone additions and subsequent removals from summit-fi in the future, as more endgame-performance yet efficient + forgiving headphones are designed and produced. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachchen1996 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe 

Agreed, I don't care about where they put them, I just do not agree with the mentality. If the category would be Ultra High-End, well yes...it should not be there, but in high end it sure has a place. Who sets the price limit?

 

I have listened to a 7k vaughan near a 2k burson conductor and the differences were minor, actually preferred conductor in some aspects, and I am sure that some people owning vaughan or gear in that price category would say that Burson Counductor is not high end or the differences are enormous, without actually blind testing them both.

 

Beyond a level, It is very easy to be thrown into psychoacoustic . Blind testing in these cases would show this.

 

And if it is a price issue, I don't know why other headphones still in the high end category.... In Europe hd800 is the same price as lcd2, even cheaper .

 

 

 

Ok....that seems a rather good explanation, but the rules are kind of foggy and the existing rules should apply to all headphones from High-End .

The problem with head-fi is that people tend to over exaggerate small tiny differences making it seem like it is night and day, and then when you actually go and compare and listen yourself the differences could actually be trivial. In the end you must try the equipment yourself to see if they are worth the upgrade over what you have, I don't believe in spending money in things where the change or improvement is so small that you literally have to strain your ears till your eyes pop out to hear it, I believe spending money on upgrades, whether it the the headphone, amp, etc should have a clear and noticeable improvement. I wish there were more audio stores in America, meet conditions are suboptimal (people talking,etc. very distracting).

I agree that the differences between cables, amps, dacs and tubes are exaggerated on head-fi.  It's too bad because a lot of people spend the big bucks and then wonder what happened, if anything.  For the noob, it can take a while to figure out how much and when to filter out the hyperbole.

Yeah, meets usually turn into gabfests so they are of limited value.  I've had good success at trying out cans via amazon.  Great return policy.  I've spent money but I didn't have to keep every single headphone I listened to.

Good post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerg 

 

... I bet LCD2 and HE500s are more like anomalies in the summit-fi forum, because they offer end-game performance without any fuss or picky upstream requirements.

 

...

Well said! And at the end of the day that's what it should all be about - not about chasing the horizon for some perceived never-appearing shimmer.

Hifimans are more comfy than Audezes, especially after 30 minutes of use. Just my 2 cents. Though Audezes are OK generally; it's mainly the temple-area that presses too hard (in the LCD3).

I like the Hifiman feel pretty much.

[LCD3s smell really nice--great leather aroma.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnsaudiophile 

Review the current flagship of Vsonic, the GR07 and JVC's new series, JVC HA-FXZ100 / HA-FXZ200

I'd definitely like to see the GR07 on here, though it's technically not a flagship since the release of the GR01. I still consider it the best bang-for-buck headphone in the world (well...until the RE0 went dropped to under $60 retail). Sub-$200 headphones just shouldn't be that good. I take issue with some excessive midrange warmth (only slightly) and metallic treble/sibilance, but the presentation is great, and they are wonderfully quick for a dynamic IEM. Oh, and they have impossibly low distortion. Seriously, it's too low to even register in measurements until you get down to the lowest registers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy 


As far as I and a few others are concerned, its both different and better, noticeably so. I have already mentioned this on the Anniversary thread, that I didnt like the Q701 and especially not the old K701 for music, yet the Anniversary brought out quite a bit of musicality, warmth, bass compared to those, that they have become my main music can. This is coming from a mild basshead. I don't wanna go into specifics yet again, but check the K702 Anniversary topic.

I'm willing to bet that the reason why some people aren't noticing much of a difference is their choice of music. Because it'd be damn near impossible to not be able to tell which is which, IMHO.

Hifiguy was one of the first who got it here, and didn't hear much of a difference. Then he changed his mind. Looks like they need more than a brief audition, though I could tell immediately.

Whether the change is su btle or not, you also have to factor in the new memory foam pads and headband which increase comfort substantially. The Q701 was a hard 6 in comfort. The Annie . Basically perfect. 9.5.

Then there is the availability as well. All these things will raise costs, though they can be found for $405 or so.

I found the difference between the Q and the Annie to be negligible, if not imperceptible. Even with my library of almost exclusively metal. I think the pads have more to do with it than anything, though. 

I'm also not one who's bothered by the headband bumps, so they're much closer in comfort for me, as well (other than those wonderful pads on the Annie). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alondite 

I'd definitely like to see the GR07 on here, though it's technically not a flagship since the release of the GR01. I still consider it the best bang-for-buck headphone in the world (well...until the RE0 went dropped to under $60 retail). Sub-$200 headphones just shouldn't be that good. I take issue with some excessive midrange warmth (only slightly) and metallic treble/sibilance, but the presentation is great, and they are wonderfully quick for a dynamic IEM. Oh, and they have impossibly low distortion. Seriously, it's too low to even register in measurements until you get down to the lowest registers.

I found the difference between the Q and the Annie to be negligible, if not imperceptible. Even with my library of almost exclusively metal. I think the pads have more to do with it than anything, though. 

I'm also not one who's bothered by the headband bumps, so they're much closer in comfort for me, as well (other than those wonderful pads on the Annie). 

The GR07 is not worthy for this thread nor is it worth Dave's time (unless you wanna see it score last place  ), on the other hand how about those fitears and tralucents?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler 

I wasn't planning to include the AD900X:(  

Aw...I was wondering if it fixes or improves on anything the AD900 had problems or was a bit on the fence with for you. Just curious. It's okay.  Beggars can't be choosers, you're already doing us a huge favor (at least in my opinion).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler 

That would be great! Look forward to it.

 

 

I can't say I agree that they're all that uncomfortable.  There's something un-ergonomic about the design in general though.

 

Hopefully! Of all the things that deserve re-design with Hifiman, that has to be #1 and #2 and #3 :D

 

i thought comfort wasnt bad with velour pads

it was the heft of them that was the problem- shifted on my head if i didnt keep my head straight up

the redesign will be interesting as i would like for them to be more transportable