[cswann1]

   
Man. 
 
Commenting on when a headphone is made doesn't make any sense.  Look at the pair of headphones themselves, not the year they are made.  It makes no sense at all.  So hard reading your comments.  

 
Saying "In 2014" is just another way of saying "these days".  He wasn't talking about when a headphone is made.

 

[Dillan]

   
Saying "In 2014" is just another way of saying "these days".  He wasn't talking about when a headphone is made.

 
He mentioned this more than once.  Calling it "5 years old".
 
Hinting the HD800 are old and outdated is actually legitimately laughable.  Some of the most highly regarded headphones today are older than that. (two times or more)
 
Immediately what comes to mind are the previous electrostatic flagships developed by Sennheiser themselves. 

 

 

[roman r]

I find my top-end headphones definante have the ability for better sound given the right circumstances.
 
If they're very bright they won't do average CDs so well and definately not the usual pop recordings.

 

[money4me247]

  I find my top-end headphones definante have the ability for better sound given the right circumstances.
 
If they're very bright they won't do average CDs so well and definately not the usual pop recordings.

it's kinda sad that some of the flagship headphones are tuned in such a way they can't play certain CDs without sibilance or overt brightness. while it may be more the fault of the recording studio/mastering people, it still sucks for the end-user to so helpless tied to certain source files. Forgiveness is a good quality to have in headphones as well. imo

 

[roman r]

My experience is top sounding/ high end headphones need to retrieve micro detail to perform at that level. . If the recording is average then the headphone will be less forgiving as it's regurgitating the garbage that a mid level headphone isn't able to see.

So average recordings will be better with mid priced headphones and great recordings at 24/96 or even the best CDs will show what a flagship can do.

I haven't found the best of all worlds from any headset. I don't think it's possible.

 

[sferic]

I've been putting statistics on PPT's to support my bosses' opinions for a living in the marketing departments of a couple well-known tech companies for the past 7 years. It's fun and it pays pretty good. This guy's deck on headphones is decent, but amateurishly manipulative and lacks visual interest. I'll give it a C-

 

[roman r]

never mind just me

 

[GL1TCH3D]

Wow. Only came across this thread now.
I laughed at the Grado and Ultrasoen "reviews" in the document.
I couldn't help but notice some players like the TOTL Audio Technicas are just completely absent but then he "reviews" the lower end AD900 and M50.

 

[wink]

Quote:xaniamin

 Guess what, there is another model which costs twice as much now...ed 5

You mean,  .... it's only half as bad as the ED10?

 

[SSandDigital]

Can clearly see how well made the HD800 is, but I still don't have to fork over that much money for a dyanmic headphone. I'll keep the K712 and spend the money on orthodynamics instead. Maybe the Oppo PM-2 when it's released or try to get Audeze LCD cheap used.  
 
I like the analysis, problem for me is my ears aren't nearly as sensitive as those measurements are.  So for me the headphones he gave ratings of C are likely more than enough for me, and wouldn't hear much improvements from the ones he gave an A+.  Hopefully hear improvement, but not $1200 more since I got my K712 at a great price.
 
I'm disappointed by AKG on the K812 though. I expect more from this company, instead of just a huge 1.5 Tesla magnet, they should have focused more on perfecting their varimotion or like Sennheiser come out with something more revolutionary.  How long have they been recycling varimotion now?

 

[HPiper]

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.

 

[pachoo5]

Hmm, interesting test and article. It's another bullet point pushing me more and more into buying an LCD-3 as my open headphone flagship.

 

[GL1TCH3D]

Hmm, interesting test and article. It's another bullet point pushing me more and more into buying an LCD-3 as my open headphone flagship.

Regardless of graphs you should make sure you enjoy them before plunging in that much.
I found them to be very smooth but quite lifeless when I compare it to others like the HD800 or other more fun (faster) flagships.

 

[Noobmachine]

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. Implying that headphone manufacturers don't know what they're doing by citing the fact that their headphone doesn't "measure " well is quite nonsensical, it's as if these audiophiles claim to know exactly how to engineer a perfect headphone...

This entire hobby is based on listening with our ears, not reading charts with our eyes. For me, the K812 Pros sound practically perfect (and will probably buy a pair in the near future) and the LCD-3s sound like a narrow congested headphone with no 3D sound stage and shelved treble, whereas according to their (arbitrary) ranking the LCDs are more fit to be a flagship headphone, because they look better on paper, rather than sound better in person.

It almost seems like these people would rather buy the headphone, put them on their head, and read a chart of how the headphones are so "technically perfect" without having them plugged in...

 

[xdog]

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. Implying that headphone manufacturers don't know what they're doing by citing the fact that their headphone doesn't "measure " well is quite nonsensical, it's as if these audiophiles claim to know exactly how to engineer a perfect headphone...

This entire hobby is based on listening with our ears, not reading charts with our eyes. For me, the K812 Pros sound practically perfect (and will probably buy a pair in the near future) and the LCD-3s sound like a narrow congested headphone with no 3D sound stage and shelved treble, whereas according to their (arbitrary) ranking the LCDs are more fit to be a flagship headphone, because they look better on paper, rather than sound better in person.

It almost seems like these people would rather buy the headphone, put them on their head, and read a chart of how the headphones are so "technically perfect" without having them plugged in...

The whole reason is 'sanity validation' and giving a general OBJECTIVE view, unfortunatly in the real world
- [sanity validation] there are funboys, people thinking SQ=money, people with 'unusual' perceptions (for instance going for separation/small instrument soundspace? at the cost of harsh treble or weird resonanses); as I said in the rant thread, head-fi itself is ok due to its size; but on smaller forums you can have GS1000 or qualia fanboys
- [OBJECTIVE VIEW] it is hard to listen to every headphone, or get a general idea of sound of a lot of headphones
 
Fortunatly/unfortunatly (and this is my view) the FR are quite good approximation of the headphone sound,
and also the 'arbitrary' [technical] rankings are related with normal statisticalally adapted reviews where LCD 2/3 seems to get very hight places, and not a lot of people seem to be enthralled by 812
 
Please note