[TWerk]

That's true. However, both are <500, which isn't horrible compared to the newer flagships.

I do think low-mid fi is basically where the value is at even though I own some (2) higher cost cans.

For the T1, you can get one around 450, whereas a lot of the higher end cans go for like double that.

DX1000 is just enjoyable. Awesome low end. Doesn't have the fidelity of the T1 but brings the fun.

 

[AudioThief]

That's true. However, both are <500, which isn't horrible compared to the newer flagships.

I do think low-mid fi is basically where the value is at even though I own some (2) higher cost cans.

For the T1, you can get one around 450, whereas a lot of the higher end cans go for like double that.

DX1000 is just enjoyable. Awesome low end.

¨
Well, I believe that the T1 is criminally underpriced as far as technicalities go. The DX1000 used to go for 1000$+

The T1 is basically a TOTL can and similar in technical ability to summit-fi cans. I think its a bit cheap to mention it as an argument for why going past "mid fi" isn't worth it is all

 

[TWerk]

¨
Well, I believe that the T1 is criminally underpriced as far as technicalities go. The DX1000 used to go for 1000$+

The T1 is basically a TOTL can and similar in technical ability to summit-fi cans. I think its a bit cheap to mention it as an argument for why going past "mid fi" isn't worth it is all

I agree with you that the technical ability of the T1 is fantastic and yes, way underpriced for the level of performance you get out of them. Hence why I own a pair

I think as a general rule, lower to mid fi is where the value is at. There are exceptions, where T1 (if you consider a totl HP) could be viewed as an exception. But considering you can get a pair for 450, it almost falls into mid-tier pricing, which is why I see it that way. I consider the current price to be reflective of low/mid/high fi which is why, for me, it can be considered mid level nowadays. Not too many examples of this exist.

Basically, you get a hi fi sound from a mid-tier priced can, what's not to love about that?

 

[AudioThief]

I agree with you that the technical ability of the T1 is fantastic and yes, way underpriced for the level of performance you get out of them. Hence why I own a pair

I think as a general rule, lower to mid fi is where the value is at. There are exceptions, where T1 (if you consider a totl HP) could be viewed as an exception. But considering you can get a pair for 450, it basically falls into mid-tier pricing, which is why I see it that way. I consider the price to be reflective of low/mid/high fi which is why, for me, it can be considered mid level nowadays. Not too many examples of this exist.

Basically, you get a high fi sound from a mid-tier priced can, what's not to love?

Well.. I sort of agree.

I agree in the sense that if you get a summit-fi performing pair of headphones for a mid-fi price, you've gotten fantastic value. But I don't agree that this is an argument for why mid-fi is where the value is at (since you can find "bargains" at essentially any price point), nor do I agree with the notion that mid-fi can be called "value" at all.

Someone on this forum has a really nice quote which is something like "audio is all subtle changes and none of it is worth it". It basically just sums it all up. The truth is that for any normal, non obsessed human being, the changes between headphones are so laughably subtle and CERTAINTLY not worth hundreds of dollars - so talking about value in terms of headphones worth more than 50$ is a bit silly imo - most entry level headphones gives you the most vital information on a track. Now, for us obsessed people.. There are different tiers I guess. Some think entry level to mid fi is the biggest jump in quality. Others, like me for instance, felt the jump from mid fi to summit fi was biggest. In terms of real world differences for the non obsessed, we are both wrong. In terms of difference for our own ears, we are both right.

So I think that talking about "value" and "point of diminishing returns" is a bit silly. Okay, if I start spending thousands of dollars on usb cables I'm probably well beyond the point of dimishing returns - but as long as we are talking about headphones, such a thing doesn't really exist. This is head fi, so I trust most people here understand that its stupid trying to quantify quality changes by looking at FR graphs or dumb stuff like that when talking about AUDIO. What we do know is that there exist "reasonably" priced equipment that gets everything on the recording delivered to you in a spectacular soundstage (HD800), and which we can easily call the "technical pinnacle". But audio enjoyment or the quality of audio reproduction doesn't work like this at all. I'm not saying that the sunken cost fallacy etc isn't a major factor in a lot of peoples opinions when it comes to audio, but what I'm saying is, value is a bit silly of a term when it comes to audio. If that makes sense.

 

[Guidostrunk]

I've always wanted to try a pair of T1's. It's just been so hard to part with my HE560's.
I didn't care for the HD800's at all. There's no fun whatsoever. Reading a book was more enjoyable.
Lol

 

[TWerk]

Well.. I sort of agree.

I agree in the sense that if you get a summit-fi performing pair of headphones for a mid-fi price, you've gotten fantastic value. But I don't agree that this is an argument for why mid-fi is where the value is at (since you can find "bargains" at essentially any price point), nor do I agree with the notion that mid-fi can be called "value" at all.

Someone on this forum has a really nice quote which is something like "audio is all subtle changes and none of it is worth it". It basically just sums it all up. The truth is that for any normal, non obsessed human being, the changes between headphones are so laughably subtle and CERTAINTLY not worth hundreds of dollars - so talking about value in terms of headphones worth more than 50$ is a bit silly imo - most entry level headphones gives you the most vital information on a track. Now, for us obsessed people.. There are different tiers I guess. Some think entry level to mid fi is the biggest jump in quality. Others, like me for instance, felt the jump from mid fi to summit fi was biggest. In terms of real world differences for the non obsessed, we are both wrong. In terms of difference for our own ears, we are both right.

So I think that talking about "value" and "point of diminishing returns" is a bit silly. Okay, if I start spending thousands of dollars on usb cables I'm probably well beyond the point of dimishing returns - but as long as we are talking about headphones, such a thing doesn't really exist. This is head fi, so I trust most people here understand that its stupid trying to quantify quality changes by looking at FR graphs or dumb stuff like that when talking about AUDIO. What we do know is that there exist "reasonably" priced equipment that gets everything on the recording delivered to you in a spectacular soundstage (HD800), and which we can easily call the "technical pinnacle". But audio enjoyment or the quality of audio reproduction doesn't work like this at all. I'm not saying that the sunken cost fallacy etc isn't a major factor in a lot of peoples opinions when it comes to audio, but what I'm saying is, value is a bit silly of a term when it comes to audio. If that makes sense.

This is a great post. I agree with you that the lower end cans do a large % of what the rest of the cans can do. I was listening to a 20 dollar HD201 yesterday and was very content in the process. It sounded good. Not amazing, but good and surely at 20 dollars, the real value is there, way down low. Thing is a lot of us have more than 20 bucks to spend and want to match our preferences better, hence open up this whole world of craziness. There is a lot of wisdom in your post.

So yeah, thanks for writing that to spread truth.

 

[CoffeeCutie]

Didn't buy it... fwew!

LCD-XC- while it didn't sound bad, it sounded.... like elevator music??... Like, come on, I put these on my head, thinking they had me, the greatest closed set fathomable... no stage, no lights, no glow, no extension, no mojo, no sale.

 

[TWerk]

Didn't buy it... fwew!

LCD-XC- while it didn't sound bad, it sounded.... like elevator music??... Like, come on, I put these on my head, thinking they had me, the greatest closed set fathomable... no stage, no lights, no glow, no extension, no mojo, no sale.

And heavy as heck. Like my neck is getting stronger wearing these type of heavy.

 

[yugas]

For me, Hifiman HE-1000 V2, I much prefer my HD800S instead, and they are around half the price...

 

[Jearly410]

He400i v2. I was expecting "planar bass" but instead got a soulless experience.

 

[Gibson59]

Was HD800 just too sterile and clinical for you?

Exactly, and a bit dry. I need a bit more body to the sound for my liking.

 

[Gibson59]

I agree with you that the lower end cans do a large % of what the rest of the cans can do. I was listening to a 20 dollar HD201 yesterday and was very content in the process. It sounded good. Not amazing, but good and surely at 20 dollars, the real value is there, way down low.

What's cool is when technology trickles down from high-end products to their entry level offerings. As we demand more from our totl options that just means great things for low-fi in the future!

 

[TWerk]

The oldies stay goodies too. I have an AKG K-501 and I find it great... beautiful airy open sound, and a massive soundstage. They have exceptional mids and great detail.

You always think the newest stuff is the best/better, but man some of the older stuff is special.

 

[ZetsuBozu0012]

Elear to me has mediocre sound at every level , no punchy bass as described by some
also lack in the presence area made it so so boring + small sound stage + comfort was not that good ,
and hell a lot of distortion and clicking with high volume or bass ,,
for the sound i would not pay more than 200$

i only which the M1060 had the same material & design quality as the Elear ,, i would easily pay 1K $ for it ..

Too lazy to look for the source, but memory says that there's a thread somewhere on here where someone mentions Focal deliberately designed the drivers on their headphones to start "clicking" or "popping" once people approach dangerous listening levels. It's some sort of feature designed to save your hearing, IIRC. Now it's quite possible that the unit you were using had faults causing the safety measure to kick in at lower than expected listening volumes, but it's just as likely that you were cranking it up a bit too loudly or that your source at the time was the source of the sound.

I agree that the lack of presence made it weird-ish, but they're a nice pair of cans to have if you can afford keeping multiple ones around.

 

[TWerk]

Sounds like a cop out for a failed design. Headphone drivers should not click and pop.