JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
I will come to intoart's defense. He may have come across as troll in other threads (i.e. the various K 701 bashing feasts), but this thread seems to have been launched out of serious interest. And the fact that a (halfways) established member of this board comes to such a radical conclusion is nothing short of interesting.
Now I don't share intoart's point of view at all. To me the different headphones all sound significantly different, and most of the cheaper ones have a sonic signature that I would categorize as inferior to the more expensive ones. But not without exceptions: I like the K 701 better than big shots like R10, O2, HE 90 and K 1000. Of course not with all criteria, but in the sum or essence of them.
That's why I have some understanding for the OP's approach. There are simply no clear objective quality criteria for headphones. That said, I would concede that a PortaPro can't be rated as a real contender for the high-end class save for individual sonic preferences such as the fun it provides in comparison to the more analytical characteristics of the «technically superior» headphones. In this case I would go so far as to speak of objective technical superiority in almost all criteria – because that's what I clearly hear. In less obvious cases, though, I reserve the right to dispute a general, universal (technical/sonical) superiority, e.g. of the R10 with respect to the K 701.
Well, to be honest, the OP's radical approach may also be the consequence of a relatively low sensitivity to sonic differences, let alone subtleties. After all that's what the original post indicates, stating just marginal differences with actually quite different designs. Or (later) the pretended nonexistence of sonic differences among CDPs. That's where I believe to detect a gap between entitlement and reality.
I still think a civil discussion about the subject should be possible.
.
Now I don't share intoart's point of view at all. To me the different headphones all sound significantly different, and most of the cheaper ones have a sonic signature that I would categorize as inferior to the more expensive ones. But not without exceptions: I like the K 701 better than big shots like R10, O2, HE 90 and K 1000. Of course not with all criteria, but in the sum or essence of them.
That's why I have some understanding for the OP's approach. There are simply no clear objective quality criteria for headphones. That said, I would concede that a PortaPro can't be rated as a real contender for the high-end class save for individual sonic preferences such as the fun it provides in comparison to the more analytical characteristics of the «technically superior» headphones. In this case I would go so far as to speak of objective technical superiority in almost all criteria – because that's what I clearly hear. In less obvious cases, though, I reserve the right to dispute a general, universal (technical/sonical) superiority, e.g. of the R10 with respect to the K 701.
Well, to be honest, the OP's radical approach may also be the consequence of a relatively low sensitivity to sonic differences, let alone subtleties. After all that's what the original post indicates, stating just marginal differences with actually quite different designs. Or (later) the pretended nonexistence of sonic differences among CDPs. That's where I believe to detect a gap between entitlement and reality.
I still think a civil discussion about the subject should be possible.
.