[SR-71Panorama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernmac /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that threads such as this offer little value...

Thats why we have summit fi

 

[The Monkey]

Back on topic. I'll try to clear this up so we can get back to more interesting threads and discussions.


Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have tried quite a few headphones at a wide range of prices, including the very expensive D5000s.

Based on your posts, it appears that you have tried several mid-fi phones, regardless of price.


Quote:

Originally Posted by OP I am back to listening to my $80 HD280s instead. I used to believe that "you get what you pay for", but I no longer think that that is true for headphones. The AKGs were 4X as much as the Sennheisers, the Denons were 6X as much, and neither seemed much better, let alone mind-blowingly better.

You're very fixated on price. Double the price does not yield double the improvement. Often it might yield only a 10% improvement. To me, that's the fun part of the chase. That last 10% is worth it to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Is there such a thing as "high end" headphones, or is that just a myth? What would I have to pay for something enough better that I would be unwilling to go back to the HD280s?

The answer is yes. An example of such a headphone would be the Stax 007 mk1. Of course, you would also need to make a commitment to your gear in the other parts of your rig, which you seem unwilling to do.

Bottom line: yes, there are plenty of better--much better--phones out there. That statement cannot reasonably be debated. But it sounds like you have reached the end of the line in your personal pursuit.

Given your sensitivity and expectations with respect to price, which are perfectly valid, perhaps you should explore the DIY aspect of this hobby and build yourself an amp. The ROI of a good DIY amp is astounding and I personally think it is a very satisfying experience to listen to something you built that compares favorably to commercial offerings.

So go build an amp. You'll like it.

 

[subtle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not implying it, stating it ouright. A $300 CD player is already indistinguishable from perfect by the human ear. Technical improvements beyond that level are a moot point, because it is not physically possible to hear them. The limitation is hearing, not equipment. If you think you hear a difference, you are clearly deluding yourself. Technical differences between transducers (eg headphones) are vastly larger, and even they are often subtle in terms of audibility. Oh, and you are not qualified to make claims about what I do or do not know, since we have never met!

LULZ!

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by XenLS86k /img/forum/go_quote.gif I still wonder what is it that these other headphones fail to do in comparison to those you have experience with and still use? Or perhaps better put, What would they need to do to justify their far higher price tags in your opinion?

At this point, I can only think of two things that would justify higher price tags: smoother highs (to eliminate sibilance) and a larger soundstage. Fortunately, my DT150s offer both of those characteristics for $180.
The tradeoff is less comfort. Very comfortable phones with DT150 sound would be unimproveable.

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerull /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's next? Going to tell a few wine tasters to drink box wine? (it's almost the same, right?) Connoisseurs are wasting their time at five-star restaurants and should go eat at a pub?

Bad analogy. Differences in wine and food can be tasted, but "differences" in CD players (once you get to a level like the Sony, with decent performance) cannot be heard.
The specs are irrelevant, because any reasonable CD player differs from perfection by a margin far too small to be audible.
For example, my Tascam appears on paper to have worse sound than my Cambridge (the specs are not as good), but it sounds every bit as good. (In fact, it sounds better because it has a better headphone output.)

The false belief that more expensive CD players sound better is a holdover from the analog era, when more expensive turntables or tape decks were better. The thing that makes digital great is that it rises above such differences. The CD encoding/decoding algorithms result in a signal vastly beyond the absolute best analog, and this is true regardless of price.

 

[grawk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bad analogy. Differences in wine and food can be tasted, but "differences" in CD players (once you get to a level like the Sony, with decent performance) cannot be heard. The specs are irrelevant, because any reasonable CD player differs from perfection by a margin far too small to be audible. For example, my Tascam appears on paper to have worse sound than my Cambridge (the specs are not as good), but it sounds every bit as good. (In fact, it sounds better because it has a better headphone output.) The false belief that more expensive CD players sound better is a holdover from the analog era, when more expensive turntables or tape decks were better. The thing that makes digital great is that it rises above such differences. The CD encoding/decoding algorithms result in a signal vastly beyond the absolute best analog, and this is true regardless of price.

Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there. Lots of things factor into that. Transducer quality, amplication chain, listening environment, aural sensitivity all impact the ability to tell the difference between sources (and headphones, and amplifiers). If any part of the chain isn't capable of the task put to it, you won't notice improvements anywhere else in the chain.

It's a very good comparison with food. While you may be able to taste a difference, you may not appreciate the difference. Quality ingredients may not make the food taste better directly. Improved preparation techniques with lower quality ingredients may not result in a more pleasurable dining experience. Higher priced wines may taste worse to you than lower cost wines. To someone with a less refined palate, a $1000 bottle of wine may taste worse than a $10 box of wine.

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there.

I didn't say its not there because I can't hear it. I said its not there because nobody can hear it.
This has been proven, but for some bizzarre reason the proof is considered taboo on this forum.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't say its not there because I can't hear it. I said its not there because nobody can hear it. This has been proven, but for some bizzarre reason the proof is considered taboo on this forum.

It's not entirely taboo: You can discuss it in the sound science forum if you're interested in the subject.

Of course I hear differences in different electronics devices (amps and sources), and they're not always about better and worse, just different. E.g. I like to switch between the UDP-1 and the Symphony's internal DAC. The Bel Canto DAC2, the Opera's DAC and the DVD 963 SA are a class below this level (to my ears). Everyone has his own ears, you just have to respect this and not spread your world view as fact. Nothing has been proven so far.

The term «better» by nature isn't a value-free attribute; it always relates to a purpose, function, taste... So it's easily possible that a headphone is the best for me, but only tolerable to others with different sonic criteria. A so-called «technical superiority» often serves for supporting and «objectivizing» a personal preference, in fact it's hard to prove it in the field of headphones (even more so than with speakers).
.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif At this point, I can only think of two things that would justify higher price tags: smoother highs (to eliminate sibilance) and a larger soundstage. Fortunately, my DT150s offer both of those characteristics for $180. The tradeoff is less comfort. Very comfortable phones with DT150 sound would be unimproveable.

Based on your statements above, I think you should try the Beyer DT770. You might like it.

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Based on your statements above, I think you should try the Beyer DT770. You might like it.

The DT770s do not sound quite as good as the DT150s, though they are close. The main difference is that the 770s can seem bright/sibilant with some recordings while the 150s never do.
The 770s are much more comfortable, though.

 

[paulb09]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Based on your statements above, I think you should try the Beyer DT770. You might like it.

You worked that out well... intoart raves about them in several other threads here.

 

[grawk]

You can solve that sibilance problem by going to a couple of concerts without earplugs

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulb09 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You worked that out well... intoart raves about them in several other threads here.

He knew that, of course. He was making an unsuccessful attempt to be funny, I think.

 

[pabbi1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like what boomana has to say here. Maybe we should put down the pitchforks and welcome a little break from groupthink?

x2 - Vicky is my hero du jour. but, I ain't giving up my pitchfork for nothing, even if, in the end, I have to fall on it.

 

[mbd2884]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulb09 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You worked that out well... intoart raves about them in several other threads here.

No intoart fantasizes with them constantly!