Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Flagship headphones in the killing field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Flagship headphones in the killing field - Page 3

post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPiper View Post
 

Sounded to me like he had a bias towards planars and against dynamics in general and certain dynamics in particular. How you can base your 'disappointment' in certain headphones based on that is ridiculous. Go listen to an AKG812 yourself if you want to see what it sounds like.

 

You don't always need to hear something.  The K812 has been universally panned as inferior to the HD800 by a large margin. K812 is supposed to be a the flagship AKG has to offer for PROFESSIONAL use, providing the best accurate sound.  To me that means like the HD800 it should measure very well.  AKG K812 is $1500!!!  I would expect you get much better performance than the K712 for the extra $1150 since market price on the K712 is much less than the MSRP, but K812 price is pretty firm on $1500.  Is HD800 worth that much too?  Dunno, up to the listener, but at least you have the comfort of knowing, you're getting the very best dynamic headphone technology has to offer right now.   With K812 you're getting a K712 with more magnetic flux density, 3mm bigger.

 

I have no interest to hear the K812 since I already have the K712, if I want to hear something else, it will be the HD800 or top level planar later.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noobmachine View Post

I don't quite understand the whole reasoning behind analysing all these graphs and measurements, I've heard a fair number of the TOTL headphones and I can easily say that the "distortion" of some headphones and all these alother weird arbitrary tests and benchmarks mean nothing. 
 
What?  Really you don't understand what the point is?  Offering flagship headphones that cost $2K that fails in everything with distortion in all frequencies?  And I'm talking about headphones that people pay insane money for just because they were assembled with glue by minimum waged latinos in Brooklyn, NY.  When you're paying that much for a supposed flagship, you don't want the reassurance that the company spent considering time and money on research and development to create the quality sound that measures supremely well and clean?  Otherwise why pay that premium price?  Just get a pair of SR60 then!

Edited by SSandDigital - 6/20/14 at 1:30am
post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSandDigital View Post

You don't always need to hear something. The K812 has been universally panned as inferior to the HD800 by a large margin. K812 is supposed to be a the flagship AKG has to offer for PROFESSIONAL use, providing the best accurate sound.  To me that means like the HD800 it should measure very well.  AKG K812 is $1500!!!  I would expect you get much better performance than the K712 for the extra $1150 since market price on the K712 is much less than the MSRP, but K812 price is pretty firm on $1500.  Is HD800 worth that much too?  Dunno, up to the listener, but at least you have the comfort of knowing, you're getting the very best dynamic headphone technology has to offer right now.   With K812 you're getting a K712 with more magnetic flux density, 3mm bigger.

I have no interest to hear the K812 since I already have the K712, if I want to hear something else, it will be the HD800 or top level planar later.

Yes, you do, if you want to have an informed opinion possibly worthy of respect.

No one else can do your listening for you or decide for you what sounds good.
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by priler View Post
 

  very interesting,thanks.

 

  one problem though,according to the established parameters,the dt880 should maybe have passed #6 and the T1 failed the same. he got the opposite.

 

 

   this doesn't tell how good they sound to the individual though.

Many individuals aren't qualified to give an opinion, and they still do. Some people think literal sh*t sounding phones sound amazing. Then they read that other people find they sound bad, and develop the same opinion, or are shown an actual good sounding pair of cans and then realize what they have been missing. Subjectivism is a poor method of measuring a headphones performance unless done by a very experienced individual, and even then, some of the audiophiles have ****ed their hearing so much they say eardrum shattering treble sounds alright.

post #34 of 38

Ultrasone's soundlogic thing works by making sounds pass through small holes in the baffle board and try to create delays  and echoes, so its a given it will have poor measurements. But I opened a few different full-sized ultrasone headphones and saw that the baffle boards were the same boards but with some holes plugged up differently, and that didn't seem to me like a well-thought out way to tune headphones. Also I remember doing all sorts of mods like adding cotton pads and opening and closing different baffle board holes for ultrasone headphones, and I guess if random changes to the headphones like that could improve sound, ultrasone must've done a pretty poor job at engineering their headphones in the first place.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if ultrasone's flagships are as bad as some people say, and the engineering issues from the slideshow is enough to make me very hesitant to consider buying ultrasones again.

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by cswann1 View Post

The Ultrasone Ed 10 reminded me of this:



This video is epic!

On a serious note do they really sound that bad?
post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukem5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by priler View Post

 
  very interesting,thanks.

  one problem though,according to the established parameters,the dt880 should maybe have passed #6 and the T1 failed the same. he got the opposite.


   this doesn't tell how good they sound to the individual though.
Many individuals aren't qualified to give an opinion, and they still do. Some people think literal sh*t sounding phones sound amazing. Then they read that other people find they sound bad, and develop the same opinion, or are shown an actual good sounding pair of cans and then realize what they have been missing. Subjectivism is a poor method of measuring a headphones performance unless done by a very experienced individual, and even then, some of the audiophiles have ****ed their hearing so much they say eardrum shattering treble sounds alright.

While I've seen my share of this at meets (one of the members for a local meet usually Cranks up his bryston bha1 to max on his lcd2) there's also a difference of ears between people.
What a lot of people consider fatiguing is fine for me. Meanwhile I'm fairly sensitive to bass and feel headphones like the th900 have too much.
post #37 of 38
Quote:Jefferent
 

This video is epic!

On a serious note do they really sound that bad?

 

I have heard 2 Ultrasones. The ED10 and Pro 750.

 

Both had the same grating treble, only the ED10 more so.

 

It seems that the S-Logic is the problem here.

 

Some get it, some don't.

 

You won't find an Ultrasone in my collection until I hear one I like.

post #38 of 38
This guy seems to be an expert with their product.biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Flagship headphones in the killing field