[wgb113]

So in the Head-Fi vernacular fidelity is measured by dollars, not sound quality...uhh...interesting I guess...

 

[Koolpep]

  So in the Head-Fi vernacular fidelity is measured by dollars, not sound quality...uhh...interesting I guess...

Yep, so the goalposts keep on moving.... former Summit-fi price points become just ordinary mid-fi....
 
HE-1000 anyone? Orpheus? Stax?

 

[alishafai]

Well, basically yes & no. You can find 'high quality' or 'high-fidelity' sound starting at $200-$300. However, generally the whole $200-$500ish price bracket is considered 'mid-fi.' The term mid-fi is more directed towards the target audience/price bracket rather than trying to say that those headphones only having 'middle fidelity' lol. There is no such thing as middle fidelity, as fidelity simply means accuracy to source. Headphones are either accurate or inaccurate. If the headphones are only accurate 'half the time,' they are actually just inaccurate. The term mid-fi relates to a broad category of non-flagship and non-budget level headphones, but does not actually say anything abt their sound quality. You can have terrible mid-fi headphones or high quality mid-fi headphones.

Now, there has been a shift from flagships moving to the $1k+ price point, leaving a weird price hole between what really intense enthusiasts are willing to pay ($1k+) and what normal people think is reasonable ($10-$400). This creates the new price catorgory from $500-$900 that I personally call "the overpriced mid-fi or underpriced flagship".

The majority of headphones in this new $500-900 price bracket are basically overpriced mid-fi headphones with similiar sonic performance as the good options in the $200-$300 bracket. They are sold to people who don't know any better and think there is a linear relationship between price tag and sound quality. There isn't.

Then, there are a few gems in this weird new price bracket with performance is actually compareable to other current flagship headphones, but with a price tag under $1k.

The reason flagships cost $1k+ nowadays doesn't have anything to do with manufactoring costs. The reason flagships are priced like that is because that is where you get the largest profit margins currently. Market prices are balanced out by demand. There are enough people willing to spend that much money that they can afford to keep the prices for flagships above $1k.

Just fun side info. The current Beats type $300ish premium headphones can be made for <$20/each. The final MSRP of audiophile brand headphones requires additional mark up for dealers to make a profit.

 
What headphones do you consider as the exceptions or gems? 
 
You make an interesting and compelling point and I have been wondering is the EL-8 truly a step up, from say a Sennheiser Momentum 2.0.
 
I have the EL-8 closed on the way, because I am thinking it should be better than headphones in the $300-$500 range; because its an Audeze. Also, because I think a closed will give me more flexibility. Styling aside, I don't see a strong reason to get the open EL-8, when the headphones [LCD-2] that made Audeze a name to respect is only $195 more!
 
I will only be able to compare the EL-8 to my IEM's from JH Audio and though its a very different type of comparison, in the end its gotta sound as good or better than my JHA 16's for me to keep it. 

 

[aznever]

This is my first expensive headphones, so am not sure what to expect.

 

[JonathanCandel]

Agree to drop it. Last point is I simply believe in what I hear for myself, and I'm an engineer as well, so it's highly tempting to only believe hard data, but if I did that I'd have missed out on so much...

Cheers

 
 

   
What headphones do you consider as the exceptions or gems? 
 
You make an interesting and compelling point and I have been wondering is the EL-8 truly a step up, from say a Sennheiser Momentum 2.0.
 
I have the EL-8 closed on the way, because I am thinking it should be better than headphones in the $300-$500 range; because its an Audeze. Also, because I think a closed will give me more flexibility. Styling aside, I don't see a strong reason to get the open EL-8, when the headphones [LCD-2] that made Audeze a name to respect is only $195 more!
 
I will only be able to compare the EL-8 to my IEM's from JH Audio and though its a very different type of comparison, in the end its gotta sound as good or better than my JHA 16's for me to keep it. 

Interesting. What do you think so far?

I am currently using my JH Audio Roxanne (custom) with an AK240. As I am tempted to the EL-8, I am scared that I might not be satisfied by the sound compared to the Roxanne...

 

[alishafai]

   
 
Interesting. What do you think so far?

I am currently using my JH Audio Roxanne (custom) with an AK240. As I am tempted to the EL-8, I am scared that I might not be satisfied by the sound compared to the Roxanne...

I will get the El-8 closed tomorrow and then I can give you my impressions. 

 

[JonathanCandel]

  Went to shop today to get my pre-order EL-8 close. I had compared open and close
 
For close, I don't know how to describe its sound. el-8 close sound weird and not natural. Bass is not real. Mid is worst, singer voice sound like synthesizer
 
While open version sound very good to my ear. I don't like LCD2, it's too lean, too smooth for me. 8 closes have forward mid and sparkling in treble and I like it a lot
 
So I ask seller to change from close to open one.
 

 
P.S. el-8 open sound very good without any burn in. I don't know whether it will be any improvement after 20-100 hours or not. But it doesn't matter, I already happy now.

 
Did you feel that the AK240 is able to drive the EL-8 open without needing further amplification?  
Thanks!

 

[pietcux]

Is

Did you feel that the AK240 is able to drive the EL-8 open without needing further amplification?  
Thanks!

Isn't there a HUGO underneath the AK240?

 

[JonathanCandel]

Is
Isn't there a HUGO underneath the AK240?

Haha, yeah... no worries, your visuals did not abandon you !
I am just interested whether the audition was also conducted with the AK240 alone. 
 
Carrying around more than my DAP (and hp/IEMs of course), defeats the purpose of portability for me personally.
 
 
Btw. Greetings from Germany, Cologne! 

 

[lamode]

Headphones are either accurate or inaccurate. If the headphones are only accurate 'half the time,' they are actually just inaccurate. The term mid-fi relates to a broad category of non-flagship and non-budget level headphones, but does not actually say anything abt their sound quality. You can have terrible mid-fi headphones or high quality mid-fi headphones.

 
WhatchyoutalkinaboutWillis?
 
All headphones are inaccurate. All that changes is the degree of the inaccuracy. If we crudely divide headphones into 3 groups according to the amount of inaccuracy, then we will have lo-fi, mid-fi and hi-fi. It's not about price but performance. So you can not have terrible mid-fi headphones, as a matter of definition!

 

[jaywillin]

new el-8 owner here, i've just had it for a couple hours, 
the first thing that struck me is the build quality is better than i expected, the fit is good, 
sound wise, it does sound like an audeze, and it's going to take a while for my ears to adjust
i've been listening to a grado 225e, and a t1 exclusively for a while, so my ears aren't 
ready for the planar sound

 

[mikroski]

  Did you feel that the AK240 is able to drive the EL-8 open without needing further amplification?  
Thanks!

For me, I think it is enough. I also try EL8 with my Xperia Z Ultra (using Onkyo HiFi app), result is also good. I only listen to jazz and female vocal, no complicate music.

 

[JonathanCandel]

  For me, I think it is enough. I also try EL8 with my Xperia Z Ultra (using Onkyo HiFi app), result is also good. I only listen to jazz and female vocal, no complicate music.

Great thanks 
Looks like this is going to hurt my wallet again...

 

[money4me247]

  So in the Head-Fi vernacular fidelity is measured by dollars, not sound quality...uhh...interesting I guess...

No. Fidelity means accuracy. However, due to improvements in headphone technology, nowadays the majority of well-made $200-$500 headphones are 'high-fidelity.' Therefore, the term 'high fidelity' does not really have any real meaning. The term "hi-fi" has become more of a marketing/advertising term. Defining fidelity by 'flat sound signature' is also not accurate (imo) as the TH-900 is a colored pair of headphones that is considered 'hi-fi' and the Q701 has a very flat sound signature but is generally considered 'mid-fi.' Remember the current 'mid-fi' headphones nowadays were considered to be flagships with high-fidelity a while ago. For the terms 'hi-fi,' 'mid-fi,' and 'low-fi' to have any real useful application, they must be relative to each other depending on the current range of options on the market.
 
If you see the word "hi-fi," it really doesn't mean anything. Even the Sony MDR-1A is advertised as 'hi-fi." The more appropriate term in my mind is "summit-fi," which is defined as headphones that are geared towards the highest possible sound quality without a regard for price point. They are often the headphones that feature the cutting edge technology or exotic designs or premium components. These are the luxury goods. They are geared for people who want to pay a significant premium for any possible improvement. In today's headphone market, headphones that are summit-fi generally are $1k+. You can have summit-fi headphones that suck (like the Ultrasone Ed 10). Summit-fi does not always equal good sound quality.
 
Mid-fi is headphones that attempt to achieve the best sonic performance at an affordable/reduced price. They may cut corners in construction/parts quality, but can employ higher-end technology in their construction. Their sound quality is not the best possible sound quality you can buy, but generally the really good sound performance per dollar. You can have mid-fi headphones that are extremely colored (which would not be high-fidelity in terms of accuracy) or mid-fi headphones that have a very flat sound signature (which would be considered high-fidelity in terms of accuracy).
 
Low-fi would be headphones that are not geared towards sonic performance, but rather just inexpensive pricing. They are products geared for consumers who don't care about sound quality but rather other aspects (price, fashion, features). I don't think this term is useful for audiophiles. I prefer the term 'entry-level" when describing budget-oriented headphones.
 

  WhatchyoutalkinaboutWillis?
 
All headphones are inaccurate. All that changes is the degree of the inaccuracy. If we crudely divide headphones into 3 groups according to the amount of inaccuracy, then we will have lo-fi, mid-fi and hi-fi. It's not about price but performance. So you can not have terrible mid-fi headphones, as a matter of definition!
 

As per your definition, you will be judging headphones primarily by frequency response curve & sound signature rather than sound quality aspects. Therefore, headphones like the Sony Z7 (bass-emphasis), HE-500 (mid-centric), TH900 (v-shaped), Audeze LCD-2 (dark), Beyer T1 (slightly v-shaped), Grado PS1000 (sub-bass roll-off), JPS Abyss (treble response measures poorly) would all be considered mid-fi as they offer a non-neutral coloration to their sound signature, but they still may actually have better sound quality performance than other more neutral headphones such as the MDR-V6, ATH MSR7, HD600, or K712.

 

[wgb113]

Thank you for your interpretation. Didn't mean to get this thread side-tracked. On with the impressions of the Audeze EL-8.

Bill