choosing headphones

[commando]

What are the most important factors to you when you decide to buy headphones? Bass extension? Bass impact? Comfort? Style? Detail? etc

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando What are the most important factors to you when you decide to buy headphones? Bass extension? Bass impact? Comfort? Style? Detail?

There are two important factors that are most important to me. First is that the sound is faithfully reproduced. I like a headphone that provides as close to a real life experience as possible. The second is comfort. If a headphone sounds great but causes pain or irritation after a short time it is of no use to me.

 

[450]

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_jcb There are two important factors that are most important to me. First is that the sound is faithfully reproduced. I like a headphone that provides as close to a real life experience as possible. The second is comfort. If a headphone sounds great but causes pain or irritation after a short time it is of no use to me.

Same here

Except price is my number one factor, and isolation (as of now) as a fourth.

 

[commando]

I'm going to clarify what i'm asking slightly. The headphone review website i've been building for a little while is in its first phase of user testing, and i'm double checking to make sure the information gathered and presented is useful. Right now I collect a fair swag of data, I just want to check if the data i'm capturing is the right data. I capture basic facts about the headphone: weight, size, open/closed, etc. From each person submitting a review I collect:
- bass impact
- bass extension
- mids quality
- highs quality
- detail
- isolation
- durability
- soundstage
- portability
- comfort

Are all of these useful, and are there any other information I should be collecting? For example I might also ask about value, and i'm wondering if "highs quality" is the same thing as detail and is therefore redundant.

 

[raif]

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando Are all of these useful, and are there any other information I should be collecting? For example I might also ask about value, and i'm wondering if "highs quality" is the same thing as detail and is therefore redundant.

no!!

Despite the way many on this site seem to think, accentuated(or even, quality) treble does not constitute detail.

 

[commando]

Here's another question: right now everything's rated on the scale 1=bad, 10=perfect, 5=average. That means that for "highs quality" you're saying whether you enjoyed the highs or not, rather than asking how strong they are.

Would it be best to leave question at "did you enjoy the highs" or switch it to "how strong are the highs". That way people searching/reading the reviews can decide for themselves whether they want strong highs (CD3K) or recessed highs (Shure E3). It'd still be 1-10, just on a different scale (weak/average/strong compared with bad/average/perfect).

For example I enjoy strong highs, moreso than average, so i'd give the CD3K good marks in that area. Someone who finds them grating would give it low marks.

 

[kyrie]

Quote:

Despite the way many on this site seem to think, accentuated(or even, quality) treble does not constitute detail.

Exactly. Though I know that commando seems to think that "treble quality = detail."

Quality is an ambiguous word and I can't recommend it if you're going for a more objective survey.

I would say, perhaps

"detail" for bass, mids, and treble (separately),
"extension" for bass and treble,
"tightness" for bass, mids, and treble,
"decay" for bass, mids, and treble,

"neutrality,"
"instrument separation,"
"instrument localization,"
"soundstage,"
"impact,"

"dark" <==> "bright"
"recessed mids" <==> "augmented mids"
"laid back" <==> "upfront"

"isolation"
"comfort"
"fatigue"
"durability"
"portability"

 

[bifcake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyrie Exactly. Though I know that commando seems to think that "treble quality = detail." Quality is an ambiguous word and I can't recommend it if you're going for a more objective survey. I would say, perhaps "detail" for bass, mids, and treble (separately), "extension" for bass and treble, "tightness" for bass, mids, and treble, "decay" for bass, mids, and treble, "neutrality," "instrument separation," "instrument localization," "soundstage," "impact," "dark" <==> "bright" "recessed mids" <==> "augmented mids" "laid back" <==> "upfront" "isolation" "comfort" "fatigue" "durability" "portability"

That's perfect!!!

 

[raif]

I would say to not specify.

ex.
highs quality: The highs on the cd3k are silky smooth and quite excellent when paired with the right equipment, however, I find them to be far too prominent compared to the rest of the sound spectrum. 7/10

EDIT hmm, actually I thought it would be a place where many would review different phones based on your scale. But if it is just your one review, then I would second kyrie's description.

 

[commando]

The aim of my new site isn't to give ultra detailed reviews and buying advice for head-fi'ers. The aims instead are:
- To let experienced headphone users (ie people from head-fi and similar sites) get a good idea about the overall/average opinion for headphones, on a number of key areas. This will help with a lot of "what should I buy" threads: it'll give people a starting point.
- Help people who want one pair of decent headphones find one, without getting into headphones as a hobby. This is where I started about a year ago.
- Help people getting into headphones as a hobby make a first purchase.

I want the data to come from people who've sampled a range of headphones, rather than fanboys who buy MDR-V600s and think they're the best thing in the world.

Because of those aims I don't want to collect 20 metrics from each person, because:
1) People won't do reviews that take 10 minutes per headphone.
2) Ordinary people will see all the data and think "feck it, it's too complicated, i'll go buy some shiny sonys".

kyrie, those are very good metrics for people as obsessed as us here on head-fi, but i'd like to identify the major ones that most people can understand and would use when making purchasing decisions. A few thoughts:
- Detail yes, but i'd rather keep one field rather than low/mids/highs
- Extension: good idea, i'll add treble extension.
- Tightness: this is what i'm getting at with quality. I'll change the documentation
- Decay: too much information, and quite difficult to judge, at least for me.
- instrument separation, instrument localization, soundstage: I would group all of these under soundstage, and I only included it because I thought people would complain if I didn't.
- impact: bass impact I have, i'm not sure what "treble impact" would be.
- dark/bright: that's related to detail and highs I would have thought. Again possibly confusing for many people.
- Of the last 5, I have all but fatigue. Fatigue is interesting, do people think it should be included?

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando Here's another question: right now everything's rated on the scale 1=bad, 10=perfect, 5=average. That means that for "highs quality" you're saying whether you enjoyed the highs or not, rather than asking how strong they are. Would it be best to leave question at "did you enjoy the highs" or switch it to "how strong are the highs". That way people searching/reading the reviews can decide for themselves whether they want strong highs (CD3K) or recessed highs (Shure E3). It'd still be 1-10, just on a different scale (weak/average/strong compared with bad/average/perfect). For example I enjoy strong highs, moreso than average, so i'd give the CD3K good marks in that area. Someone who finds them grating would give it low marks.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[raif]

Maybe define a "sound signature" field and keep the quality of the highs mids and lows separate from their relative prominence.

so,

cd3k:
highs quality: 9/10 with one point taken off for reliance on synergistic components
sound signature: bright

or something to that nature

 

[commando]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raif Maybe define a "sound signature" field and keep the quality of the highs mids and lows separate from their relative prominence. so, cd3k: highs quality: 9/10 with one point taken off for reliance on synergistic components sound signature: bright or something to that nature

So you're suggesting I stick with "highs quality" over "how strong are the highs"?

I like the "sound signature" bit... but then I have to define them. Bright, smooth, and laid back are all I can think of. Any advanced on that? And is it really worth it for that small amount of information?

 

[raif]

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando So you're suggesting I stick with "highs quality" over "how strong are the highs"?

yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando I like the "sound signature" bit... but then I have to define them. Bright, smooth, and laid back are all I can think of. Any advanced on that? And is it really worth it for that small amount of information?

Kyrie said it best, IMO

"dark" <==> "bright"
"recessed mids" <==> "augmented mids"[maybe boosted midrange, augmented sounds like colored to me]
"laid back" <==> "upfront"[or forward]
I added the bracket stuff, including the next pair
["analytical" <==> "musical "]

I guess you could say smooth instead of musical

EDIT oh and
"bassy" <==> "bass shy"

ex.
grado ps-1(IMO)
highs quality = 10/10
sound signature = upfront, smooth and bassy

 

[kiwirugby]

I agree with raif, in order for there to be aby vaildity and reliability to this important venture, the key terms or characteristics that are being used (such as detail extension, decay, and so on) need some form of definition so that whoever is completing the "form" understands what is being rated or described. This should get at the validity issue.

As for rating scales, these are more difficult. My suggestion is that if one decised to use some form of definition, see what scale (high/low quality; high/low extension; etc.) best fits the item. This would help with reliability in rating.

 

[bangraman]

I'll pick whatever commando doesn't like