Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why are some headphones more expensive than others?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are some headphones more expensive than others? - Page 3

post #31 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbear View Post
 


LOL. Your friends clearly don't understand the difference between lossy and lossless compression. This lack of understanding is causing them to fool themselves. 

Yeah that sounds like my friends. hahaha. Enough money to buy T1s and get very elitist about them, but not enough research. I honestly listen to everything in MP3 320 and produce everything with .wav so I've really never paid too much attention. 

post #32 of 107

Yeah, I get FLAC just because I have no reason not to and it makes me feel good, but I hear no difference vs. 320. 

post #33 of 107

I must agree that iTunes downloads highly depend on the master recording, otherwise I have aac256 from iTunes that really do sound awesome, and I also have some that don't. The same thing goes for Cd's, there are some that are awesome and some that aren't! And I found that there are more poorly mastered Cd's than awesome Cd's, their definitely all not the same in no way. If you listen to any Smooth Jazz, pick up The Best of Four Play and play it through your system and you will be blown away, and just as well with Dire Straits Brothers In Arms. These are just two examples of how I wish every Cd sounded.

post #34 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

Ummm - no.  Itunes default now is aac256, so unless the OP has intentionally downloaded as aac128 - then the file quality should be OK  Also aac is generally regarded as being a better container for lossy files - with aac256 accepted as being at least equal to mp3 320 if not better.  Personally I find them indistinguishable.  Any other difference would be in the actual mastering.  If you want to try (the software is all free) - have a look at this thread (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding).

Take any CD - rip to lossless - then transcode the lossless to two copies - one aac256 and the other mp3 320.  Highly doubtful you can successfully and consistently abx (ie blind) the aac256 from the mp3 320 - let alone from the actual lossless file.

 

 

Agree on the price - you can buy CDs cheaper - then just rip them yourself.  As far as SQ goes - nope.  Mastering may be different, and that's what you have to watch.

 

 

Nope again.  At least with iTunes you know what you're buying.  Torrenting is illegal and there would be no guarantee that the file quality would be any better.

 

 

There is no difference between WAV and FLAC - apart from file size (FLAC is compressed - but still lossless).  Both will send the same PCM signal.   It doesn't matter how good your system is - as long as their are no errors in decoding, and both are from the same master digital file, both volume matched and tested under a proper blind abx - no-one will be able to tell them apart.

I can't buy CD's from my favorite artists because they're far from mainstream :(

post #35 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR4599638 View Post
 

I can't buy CD's from my favorite artists because they're far from mainstream :(

 

Again - if their medium is mainly iTunes - don't worry about it.  Aac256 is not going to be the quality issue here.

post #36 of 107

Here is a great example of aac256 from iTunes-

The Cure's - "Love Song"

Download this from iTunes, and tell me it isn't awesome sounding!And for that matter anyone can try to tell me different!

post #37 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Again - if their medium is mainly iTunes - don't worry about it.  Aac256 is not going to be the quality issue here.
If I'm using soundcloud then how can I determine which format the song is in?
post #38 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR4599638 View Post


If I'm using soundcloud then how can I determine which format the song is in?

I don't know anything about sound cloud, but like iTunes it may give you the option to see the kbps.

post #39 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyDan View Post
 

You might want to get electronic music from a site like Beatport since they can get you MP3-320s which will sound much better than the lower bit rate sound files you can get off itunes. That may help you going forward, and may highlight the differences between more headphones. 

That's nonsense, properly encoded 256 kbps AAC is transparent.

post #40 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR4599638 View Post
 

This may seem like the dumbest question on headfi, but seriously, why are some headphones more expensive than others? I have apple headphones that came with my iPhone 5, ws55's, and SRH840's, and I honestly can't tell any significant differences in sound quality. For example, everyone on headfi praises the SRH840's for being revealing, but my apple headphones are just as revealing! I just don't understand why I would pay an additional $170 on SRH840's when I feel that other than features and small specs, they are equal in quality! Is it just me?


a headphone is more expensive mainly because it has more enginering on it, and it is more expensive because it has a better magnet, higher quality voice coil or an exotic material on the diaphragm.

 

If you cant hear a diference between your earbuds and the shures is just because you dont have a refined ear, I had apple earbuds too, and yeah they sound nice, warm and pleasant, but they are murdered by my shure 440, the shures expose a lot more detail and a far more coherent image of the music, and im sure about this because im a musician, i have playied trumpet in anorchestra for more than 5 years, i have a trained ear.

 

There are some phones (betats, bose) that are expensive only because companies want to steal your money, but real listeners headphones, like shure or audiotechnica, are more expensive because they have better enginering and higher quality materials on their drivers, and if you look at the measurements that makes them technically superior to other mainstream phones.

 

I suspect that you think the earbuds sound better with lower quality recordings than the shures just because they have a more "mainstream" and easy frequency response, the shures seem to sound worse just because they are more precise and honest, and that makes them actually better, is like crt and led tv, lower quality pictures (analog tv) look better on the crt just because it stretches and smooths the pixels (distorts it) and on the led it looks bad because the led tv isdesigned for higher quality material.

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph69 View Post

Here is a great example of aac256 from iTunes-
The Cure's - "Love Song"
Download this from iTunes, and tell me it isn't awesome sounding!And for that matter anyone can try to tell me different!

You should hear the LP played on a real system. biggrin.gif
post #42 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphantom View Post


a headphone is more expensive mainly because it has more enginering on it, and it is more expensive because it has a better magnet, higher quality voice coil or an exotic material on the diaphragm.

If you cant hear a diference between your earbuds and the shures is just because you dont have a refined ear, I had apple earbuds too, and yeah they sound nice, warm and pleasant, but they are murdered by my shure 440, the shures expose a lot more detail and a far more coherent image of the music, and im sure about this because im a musician, i have playied trumpet in anorchestra for more than 5 years, i have a trained ear.

There are some phones (betats, bose) that are expensive only because companies want to steal your money, but real listeners headphones, like shure or audiotechnica, are more expensive because they have better enginering and higher quality materials on their drivers, and if you look at the measurements that makes them technically superior to other mainstream phones.

I suspect that you think the earbuds sound better with lower quality recordings than the shures just because they have a more "mainstream" and easy frequency response, the shures seem to sound worse just because they are more precise and honest, and that makes them actually better, is like crt and led tv, lower quality pictures (analog tv) look better on the crt just because it stretches and smooths the pixels (distorts it) and on the led it looks bad because the led tv isdesigned for higher quality material.
Sorry, your post offended me a little. I am too a musician, I have been playing guitar and piano since I was 5 and 7, trumpet, clarinet, trombone, and euphonium in school bands since 10. I still play and practice these instruments, so I must have a musically inclined ear as well. Still, I can't determine any differences in quality or detail in my SRH840's, WS55's, or apple earpods.
post #43 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR4599638 View Post
 
Sorry, your post offended me a little. I am too a musician, I have been playing guitar and piano since I was 5 and 7, trumpet, clarinet, trombone, and euphonium in school bands since 10. I still play and practice these instruments, so I must have a musically inclined ear as well. Still, I can't determine any differences in quality or detail in my SRH840's, WS55's, or apple earpods.


Interesting. Have you listened to high quality recordings of the instruments you play?

post #44 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphantom View Post


a headphone is more expensive mainly because it has more enginering on it, and it is more expensive because it has a better magnet, higher quality voice coil or an exotic material on the diaphragm.

If you cant hear a diference between your earbuds and the shures is just because you dont have a refined ear, I had apple earbuds too, and yeah they sound nice, warm and pleasant, but they are murdered by my shure 440, the shures expose a lot more detail and a far more coherent image of the music, and im sure about this because im a musician, i have playied trumpet in anorchestra for more than 5 years, i have a trained ear.

There are some phones (betats, bose) that are expensive only because companies want to steal your money, but real listeners headphones, like shure or audiotechnica, are more expensive because they have better enginering and higher quality materials on their drivers, and if you look at the measurements that makes them technically superior to other mainstream phones.

I suspect that you think the earbuds sound better with lower quality recordings than the shures just because they have a more "mainstream" and easy frequency response, the shures seem to sound worse just because they are more precise and honest, and that makes them actually better, is like crt and led tv, lower quality pictures (analog tv) look better on the crt just because it stretches and smooths the pixels (distorts it) and on the led it looks bad because the led tv isdesigned for higher quality material.
If the SRH840's are so detailed, please give me an example of something that is audible with the SRH840's, and not the apple earpods.
post #45 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post


You should hear the LP played on a real system. biggrin.gif

First off I do have a real system, and second, we are talking about digital, not analog recordings, and I'm sure it sounds totally different on LP. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why are some headphones more expensive than others?