[14likd1]

Not an expert when it comes to audio but I thought I could give my two cents in this conversation since I have experienced probably some of the worlds best Home Speaker setup and a HD 800. While I do agree that headphones are more intimate the feeling you get when you listen to an insane home audio system is something headphones cannot produce. When I listen on headphones my mind is swayed to the tune of the music but when I am listening on a great speaker system my whole body is affected. Another point I like to make is that a headphone can't do everything while with speakers you can add more specialized things which make a more versatile system.

 

[headdict]

What do you mean by 'more specialized things'? Could you please give some examples?

 

[kid vic]

Not an expert when it comes to audio but I thought I could give my two cents in this conversation since I have experienced probably some of the worlds best Home Speaker setup and a HD 800. While I do agree that headphones are more intimate the feeling you get when you listen to an insane home audio system is something headphones cannot produce. When I listen on headphones my mind is swayed to the tune of the music but when I am listening on a great speaker system my whole body is affected. Another point I like to make is that a headphone can't do everything while with speakers you can add more specialized things which make a more versatile system.

Funny that you mention this point, it seems like a lot of people on head-fi have multiple headphones just because some are tuned to better play certain genres (AKG K501 for classical, Beyer DT770 for hip hop, etc). It's pretty difficult to have a bunch of different speakers for a few genres and moods (unless your super rich).

 

[LazyListener]

I've chimed in this thread before, and have since listened to a few different speakers in a 2.0 setup. The speakers I've auditioned include KEF Q100 and Q300, Dali Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, and JBL LSR305. I also own an older Polk RT1000P/CS400/RT35i 5.1 home theater setup. After listening to all of these speakers, I can unequivocally state that I still prefer the listening experience with my HD 598 headphones over any of the speakers. The biggest reason being that I can hear all the details clearly. With speakers in a non-acoustically treated room, some of the details get lost or are barely audible. The 598s create the proper acoustic environment automatically and provide a nice sense of ambiance of the recording. Layering and separation are better than any of the speakers I tried. Imaging and soundstage accuracy are better on either of the KEF speakers. The 598s are not known for accurate imaging, but do provide a nice wide and spacious soundstage. The KEF speakers are great though. They come close to the detail and separation/layering of the 598s, and have more accurate imaging and soundstage. The 598s still sound better to me overall though. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd pick the 598s every time.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I've chimed in this thread before, and have since listened to a few different speakers in a 2.0 setup. The speakers I've auditioned include KEF Q100 and Q300, Dali Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, and JBL LSR305. I also own an older Polk RT1000P/CS400/RT35i 5.1 home theater setup. After listening to all of these speakers, I can unequivocally state that I still prefer the listening experience with my HD 598 headphones over any of the speakers. The biggest reason being that I can hear all the details clearly. With speakers in a non-acoustically treated room, some of the details get lost or are barely audible. The 598s create the proper acoustic environment automatically and provide a nice sense of ambiance of the recording. Layering and separation are better than any of the speakers I tried. Imaging and soundstage accuracy are better on either of the KEF speakers. The 598s are not known for accurate imaging, but do provide a nice wide and spacious soundstage. The KEF speakers are great though. They come close to the detail and separation/layering of the 598s, and have more accurate imaging and soundstage. The 598s still sound better to me overall though. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd pick the 598s every time.

That's pretty interesting, but my experience has been quite different. As you know, I owned higher-end models in the Sennheiser HD series, such as the 800, 700, 650, and 600. I auditioned the 558 (which has the same drivers as the 598) as well. You probably also remember that STAX is my favorite headphone manufacturer. In 2015 I had the SR-207 and SR-30, and just recently, I got the SR-L300 and SR-Lambda. While it may be true that you don't have to worry about the listening room with headphones, and they let you analyze detail more easily, this isn't much of an advantage in my book. To my ears, the LSR305 has better macrodetail and only loses to headphones a tiny fraction of a percent of the time when it comes to microdetail. (In many cases, it's not reproducing fewer details; it's just putting them in their proper place in the background.) I'm not sure how your headphones could have better layering and separation, because no headphone can even touch my speakers there either. It's like I'm listening to the actual instruments in the room, whereas with headphones, everything is just right next to my ears, and in addition to the imaging disadvantage, it doesn't sound even remotely as realistic. I ended up selling both of those more recent STAX systems shortly after getting them, since I prefer the speakers and would rather have the extra cash. I still love headphones, though, and once I'm in a better position financially, I'll have no problem owning both speakers and headphones in the four to five figure range. Anyway, it's possible that your lackluster experience with the 305 was due to sub-optimal setup. The room and the position of the speakers in the room really does affect the sound greatly, even in a nearfield setting. Some recordings can sound a lot worse than they normally would if the speakers aren't set up well. (Even with positions in my room that sound great with some recordings, they may have major problems with others.) I also discovered that the speakers don't sound nearly as good when used with affordable DACs. For example, I think the JDS Labs OL DAC is the best DAC I've heard under $200, but compared to the Chord 2Qute and Mojo, it sounds sorta lo-fi to me. If I had only, say, auditioned the speakers without a (relatively) high-end DAC, I wouldn't be so impressed by (let alone know about) what they're capable of. Then again, my opinion of speakers vs headphones remains the same regardless of the source components used. In the future it would be a good idea to experiment with how the speakers are set up.

 

[LazyListener]

That's pretty interesting, but my experience has been quite different. As you know, I owned higher-end models in the Sennheiser HD series, such as the 800, 700, 650, and 600. I auditioned the 558 (which has the same drivers as the 598) as well. You probably also remember that STAX is my favorite headphone manufacturer. In 2015 I had the SR-207 and SR-30, and just recently, I got the SR-L300 and SR-Lambda. While it may be true that you don't have to worry about the listening room with headphones, and they let you analyze detail more easily, this isn't much of an advantage in my book. To my ears, the LSR305 has better macrodetail and only loses to headphones a tiny fraction of a percent of the time when it comes to microdetail. (In many cases, it's not reproducing fewer details; it's just putting them in their proper place in the background.) I'm not sure how your headphones could have better layering and separation, because no headphone can even touch my speakers there either. It's like I'm listening to the actual instruments in the room, whereas with headphones, everything is just right next to my ears, and in addition to the imaging disadvantage, it doesn't sound even remotely as realistic. I ended up selling both of those more recent STAX systems shortly after getting them, since I prefer the speakers and would rather have the extra cash. I still love headphones, though, and once I'm in a better position financially, I'll have no problem owning both speakers and headphones in the four to five figure range. Anyway, it's possible that your lackluster experience with the 305 was due to sub-optimal setup. The room and the position of the speakers in the room really does affect the sound greatly, even in a nearfield setting. Some recordings can sound a lot worse than they normally would if the speakers aren't set up well. (Even with positions in my room that sound great with some recordings, they may have major problems with others.) I also discovered that the speakers don't sound nearly as good when used with affordable DACs. For example, I think the JDS Labs OL DAC is the best DAC I've heard under $200, but compared to the Chord 2Qute and Mojo, it sounds sorta lo-fi to me. If I had only, say, auditioned the speakers without a (relatively) high-end DAC, I wouldn't be so impressed by (let alone know about) what they're capable of. Then again, my opinion of speakers vs headphones remains the same regardless of the source components used. In the future it would be a good idea to experiment with how the speakers are set up.

Hey, buddy! Glad you replied. Your raving about the LSR305s was part of the reason I auditioned them. I did like them quite a bit, but in the end decided to go with the more accurate imaging, larger soundstage, and more detailed sound of the KEF speakers. I appreciated the JBLs for their neutrality and low bass extension. What I found lacking was the clarity in the highs. The treble energy didn't fill the room enough to my liking. I get that they're intended more for nearfield listening, and when I put my ear closer and directly in front, there was a bit more apparent detail and treble energy. So maybe in my small room listening about 6-8 feet away, is not what they're best at. The setup was a simple 2.0, about a foot from back wall, facing straight out, about 7 feet apart, with me listening 6-8 feet away. I'm sure they sound better nearfield angled in at 30 degrees, but I was not going to use them that way. By comparison, the KEF, both Q100 and Q300, are not that picky about placement, and they radiate sound that fills the entire room for a very wide sweet spot. Identical setup and placement with the KEFs and they just disappear and you get a large wall of sound with an accurate phantom center and accurate positioning of sounds.

The DAC used on both setups was the same. Fiio E10K line out. Cheap, yes, and I'm sure more expensive DACs sound better. But the Fiio doesn't sound like trash either. After all, the KEFs did shine with the same DAC used with the JBLs.

What I forgot to mention was that I really enjoyed how realistic the JBLs made piano in classical music sound. By comparison, the KEFs color the sound warm low and bright high, and it doesn't sound as realistic. Shouldn't be surprised there since the JBLs are studio monitors after all and should have that more netural/flat frequency response.

Another thing I noticed with the JBLs is that dynamics seemed somewhat compressed. Not fully compressed, but definitely not the same dynamic range that the KEFs put out. This was obvious with Classical music. Do you know if the JBLs electronics do anything to compress or limit dynamics?

I really wanted to keep the JBLs, but in the end, the KEFs had a lot more of what I was looking for. In the future, I may still get studio monitors, but I'd want ones with more clarity and treble energy, even if it means less bass. I think bass is best handled by a separate subwoofer anyway. I'm thinking something like Yamaha HS5s with a subwoofer. Everything I've read says the Yamaha studio monitors are the some of the most accurate around, and have better clarity/detail than the JBLs but weaker bass, which could be cured with a matching subwoofer. Another reason I chose the KEFs was that I didn't have to worry about an internal amp dying like is possible with active studio monitors.

I'll just repeat that I really liked the LSR305s (that low bass extension and pop for their size is impressive), and for the money, they seem like very good speakers, especially for those looking for something somewhat neutral and accurate, while still being musical and not overly analytical/sterile.

I just want to be sure we're defining our terms. Please define "macrodetail" and "microdetail." I'm not sure I know the difference. Separation and layering for me is related to being able to hear all the details. Separation for me, means each instrument or sound that was recorded to occupy its own "space" in the mix is clearly heard that way and the various sounds/instruments are not congested together. For me, layering is similar to separation, except it has more to do with foreground vs background as opposed to "space" in general. An accurate reproduction of layering will put the various instruments/sounds in their correct place as far as background and foreground are concerned, creating an illusion of depth and/or distance (similar to a painting creating an illusion of distance). So yes, for me, the 598s do the detail, layering, and separation better than any of the speakers I've tried.

I don't agree with your statement that the JBLs simply put the details in the proper place in the background. That is implying that headphones do not. The way I see it (or hear it) is that the headphones are not enhancing the details in any way - they are not pushing the background details to the foreground. My guess is that with headphones, there are fewer reflected soundwaves and more direct soundwaves, so less of the sound is "lost" before entering your ears. This way you hear more of the details. Whereas with speakers in a room, unless your room is fully acoustically treated to minimize reflections, and you are listening completely on-axis with the speakers pointed at your ears, and preferably at a close distance, then the already weaker soundwaves of background sounds get reflected and a lot of that sound energy is lost and not as much of those soundwaves get absorbed by your ears. To me, it's obvious that the KEF's coaxial design and tweeter waveguide dispersion do a better job of dispersing the sound throughout the room than JBLs tweeter waveguide. Like mentioned earlier, JBL is better for nearfield with speakers pointing directly at your ears. The KEFs don't have this limitation.

I agree that headphones will never have the size, scope, and spaciousness of sound coming from speakers - that's just pure physics. Headphones will always sound in or around your ears. But some headphones do a pretty good job of recreating a smaller version (headstage) of a speaker system's soundstage, and that headstage can be pretty darn accurate and convincing (just sized down a lot).

 

[14likd1]

Well imo Head phones are jack oF all trade but masters of none. For example in speakers systems there are 3 main types of drivers, the Tweeter which has the smallest diaphragm and vibrates the fastest to produce high frequency noises, the woofer which has a larger diaphragm and producea mid to low frequencys and the subwoofer with its massive diaphragm used to play that bass. These drivers all have specialized jobs to create certain sounds at the best possible quality buck suck at the other frequency ranges. A headphone is supposed to do the job of all three while having a diaphragm size that's smaller than a woofer/subwoofer and larger than a tweeter.

 

[Music Alchemist]

[...]

Oh, yeah, you definitely want to have them closer and angled to form an equilateral triangle between the speakers and you. I wouldn't even want to listen to them with the setup you described. I have them at arms' length at the moment.

I'd say that soundstage depends more on the positioning of the speakers than which speakers you choose. But since you did not set them up in the way they're meant to be, you wouldn't be able to hear how they're supposed to sound. Many say that JBL has some of the best imaging available. The waveguide on the LSR305 is actually adapted from their $20,000 flagship monitors.

The LSR305 is very neutral, so if you want brightness, you can equalize it. (That goes for any speaker or headphone.) But I wouldn't want it to be brighter than it is. The clarity is at a realistic level to the point that, comparatively to headphones, it sounds like I'm there listening to the real instruments. (Though it's obviously not the same as being at an actual live performance. I would know, being a lifelong musician.) Another thing to remember is that the room can alter the frequency response considerably, so even when a speaker has neutral measurements, it may not be that way in the room you listen in.

Lacking dynamics? Something was wrong there. I get insane dynamics with aggressive music like metal at high volume. I can even make the floor shake with some bassy electronic music, and that's without a subwoofer. Classical is also fine. I'm sure plenty of other speakers are even better, but I can't comment on any particular one without being able to hear it first.

Microdetail is low-level sounds that may not be noticeable (or reproduced at all) on some systems, while macrodetail is comprised of "larger" sounds that are apparent on pretty much any system, but are presented differently on each. Think of things like timbre, texture, articulation, spatial cues, and so on.

Yeah...I don't get how any headphone could touch the separation, layering, imaging, etc. of decent speakers. I'm not hearing what you're hearing. (And bear in mind that I am very familiar with headphones with far higher performance than those Senns.) I suspect this is due to what I mentioned: suboptimal setup of the speakers you heard.

With headphones, all the sounds are presented in the same area: right next to your ears. There is next to zero depth. So background details are presented in the foreground even when they shouldn't be. With speakers, they are in different positions in the room. Subtle details are subtle instead of artificially emphasized in the way that makes them easier to analyze on headphones.

 

[LazyListener]

I'd say that soundstage depends more on the positioning of the speakers than which speakers you choose.

Both. Depends on the speaker design and positioning. Some are more picky about positioning than others. The manual for the LSR305s recommends angling the speakers in, whereas the manual for the KEFs shows them straight out or in the case of a home theater setup, either straight or angled. With the JBLs, you're stuck in a small sweet spot due to the angling requirement and close distance. With the KEFs, much larger soundstage and wider sweet spot for more people to enjoy simultaneously.

The LSR305 is very neutral, so if you want brightness, you can equalize it.

In my subjective opinion, in my room and setup, I'd say on the warm and smooth side of neutral. I don't like to EQ speakers. Rarely ever EQ headphones.

Lacking dynamics? Something was wrong there.

Yup. Definitely lacking dynamics. Like I said, the dynamic range wasn't completely compressed with the JBLs, but it seemed to be to some degree. All the other speakers I tried, did a better job of reproducing the full scale dynamic range.

I can even make the floor shake with some bassy electronic music

That's not a good test for dynamic range compression. DR can be compressed and the bass can still pound. Classical music is a better test. Need to hear how much scale there is between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds within a track.

Yeah...I don't get how any headphone could touch the separation, layering, imaging, etc. of decent speakers. I'm not hearing what you're hearing. (And bear in mind that I am very familiar with headphones with far higher performance than those Senns.) I suspect this is due to what I mentioned: suboptimal setup of the speakers you heard.

I don't know. I can hear all those things very well with my 598s, just on a smaller scale (headstage) than speakers (soundstage). Can't blame suboptimal setup in the case of the KEF speakers. Like I said, with those, imaging accuracy and soundstage size were clearly better than the 598s. However, it's hard to compare soundstage size between speakers and headphones, since headphones scale everything down by default to a headstage.

With headphones, all the sounds are presented in the same area: right next to your ears. There is next to zero depth. So background details are presented in the foreground even when they shouldn't be. With speakers, they are in different positions in the room. Subtle details are subtle instead of artificially emphasized in the way that makes them easier to analyze on headphones.

Yes, with headphones all the sounds are near your ears, but presented at different volumes, creating an illusion of depth and distance, while the stereo image creates an illusion of positioning. Background sounds are at lower volumes relative to foreground sounds and are still presented that way, at least on decent cans like the 598s. Some cans do a poor job and cannot recreate depth/layering very well - everything sounds congested/compressed/same or similar volume. I don't hear "background details... presented in the foreground" as you say, with the headphones I use.

With my 598s, subtle details are still "subtle" relative to other sounds, just more audible than with speakers, whereas on speakers those sounds are far less audible or some may be "there" but inaudible to me. Not sure what you mean by "artificially emphasized." My 598s don't have a DSP chip. Not sure how they can emphasize subtle details without affecting the no-so-subtle sounds as well.

 

[Music Alchemist]

In my subjective opinion, in my room and setup, I'd say on the warm and smooth side of neutral. I don't like to EQ speakers. Rarely ever EQ headphones.

Fair enough. It's certainly not on the bright/lean side of neutral. I do hear more dips than peaks in a frequency sweep, but that's preferable, since peaks are much more annoying. Even without EQ, it's already more neutral to my ears than any headphone I've heard.

If you refuse to do equalization, you'll never achieve a neutral tonal balance. Just sayin'.

Yup. Definitely lacking dynamics. Like I said, the dynamic range wasn't completely compressed with the JBLs, but it seemed to be to some degree. All the other speakers I tried, did a better job of reproducing the full scale dynamic range.

I'll take your word for it about the other speakers having better dynamics...but on the topic of the thread, I'm getting far better dynamics with the speakers than with any headphone.

That's not a good test for dynamic range compression. DR can be compressed and the bass can still pound. Classical music is a better test. Need to hear how much scale there is between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds within a track.

True...but I sense no lack of dynamics with soft-to-loud classical and have to adjust the volume rather frequently with music like that. So I guess it comes down to the other speakers being better in this area rather than the JBL being poor per se.

Yes, with headphones all the sounds are near your ears, but presented at different volumes, creating an illusion of depth and distance, while the stereo image creates an illusion of positioning. Background sounds are at lower volumes relative to foreground sounds and are still presented that way, at least on decent cans like the 598s. Some cans do a poor job and cannot recreate depth/layering very well - everything sounds congested/compressed/same or similar volume. I don't hear "background details... presented in the foreground" as you say, with the headphones I use.

With my 598s, subtle details are still "subtle" relative to other sounds, just more audible than with speakers, whereas on speakers those sounds are far less audible or some may be "there" but inaudible to me. Not sure what you mean by "artificially emphasized." My 598s don't have a DSP chip. Not sure how they can emphasize subtle details without affecting the no-so-subtle sounds as well.

They're artificially emphasized precisely because of the sounds being right next to your ears. It's not about volume; it's about the fact that they are all in the same area, representing a constant foreground, rather than in various areas of the room, as you can get with speakers. One example: Let's say there's a harp at the back and corner of a stage. The speakers would present it like that: very much in the literal background. Although the volume of the harp would be softer than other instruments on headphones, it still makes it easier to notice due to the sound's proximity to your ear; easier to notice than it would be with the original performance.

In some cases, the headphones are actually more resolving and reproducing details that the speakers aren't...but this was relatively rare for me.

But different volumes can never be a replacement for real depth, with sounds coming from different areas of the room, especially in front of you. I'd be interested in an explanation for how the headphones have better depth for you. On the other hand, accurate depth is difficult to do right with speakers even though there's far more depth than headphones. With speakers, you generally have a stage in front of you, but it would appear that you need a larger speaker system for the sonic images to occupy places in the room that represent the true depth of the recording, if there is much in the first place.

(Side note: If you're out in the audience at a classical performance, you don't really get much depth aside from the stage being in front of you. That's something to ponder in all this. Being on-stage and performing with the other musicians was a more dimensional experience for me.)

However, I enjoy the intimacy of nearfield listening. It's like the headphone version of speaker systems, so to speak. If you recall, I used to prefer headphones over speakers, and I'm guessing that's because larger speaker systems I heard in the past made me feel distanced from the music.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I'm having a heavenly session with the Koss KTXPRO1. (One of the few headphones I haven't gotten rid of since transitioning to speakers. I actually have three pairs.)

I cannot deny that certain details are easier to perceive with headphones, even when the headphones aren't nearly as resolving as the speakers. Having more "direct" sound without room reflections can be advantageous as well. And let's not forget about full sub-bass extension.

For me, the KTX strikes a good balance between technical proficiency and sacrificing some of that for musicality. It's engaging and relaxing at the same time. I stop analyzing everything so much and just get lost in the music endlessly. It's obviously not as good as high-end headphones, but I tend to enjoy it more consistently than most of them nonetheless.

The realism of my speakers is many levels higher, of course, but the KTX has a special sound that has become part of me. I'm thinking this headphone will still be one I use no matter how high I climb the echelon of speakers.

 

[SP Wild]

FYI this graph is "good sounding loudspeaker FR curve" made by Mr Ishii(famouse japanese audiophile). some may prefer it some may not. YMMV.

That looks like a good frequency response for 'live' like listening volume levels.

Neutrality is a load of crap. Depends on your mood which will dictate how loud you will listen.

I got studio monitors here... All neutral, all sound good. One is great for lower volumes, the other is better at higher volumes.

One has awesome 'soundstage' but at the cost of lower midrange smear... Which is precisely what gives it a greater perception of depth.

The other has less depth because the lower midrange is more precise... But it has a bigger scale and more 'height' to the soundstage.

Both these studio monitors at 2K ish Aussie dollars has their woofer midrange definition excelled by my 300 dollar studio monitors. Which also has the snappiest kick drum... Which is the clearest correlation to mid woofer definition. Except the dome tweeter is a bit 'unrefined' and dark sounding and the whole system hisses like a snake.

From memory, the JBL LSR305, has a PA speaker sound which lends it a 'live' character. The detail comes from its horn like coloration, just like the K701 from Harmon. The warmth comes from its extended bass... Which always comes at a cost of kick drum snap and middle C definition. The tweeter also is not as articulate as the dome on the KH120 and the AMT on the A7Xs are far more extended. The dome is on par with the dome on my Rokit 4, but is helped along by that magnificent waveguide.

 

[227qed]

.

 

[227qed]

Well I’m a bit late to the party, but have two cents to donate since I’ve listened to headphones exclusively for the last 4 years but just got my first set of towers.

Two chains:
Mimby—>iCAN—>TH-X00
MSRP $950
Mimby—>Emotiva A-100–>Airmotiv T1
MSRP $1250

SPEAKERS
The speakers sound pretty veiled unless they’re played loud, but the stage can be pretty cool in movies. Like the broom chase at the intro of the Crimes of Grindelwald. Terrible movie IMHO, but one if the first things I tested the speakers with and I was genuinely impressed with the sound going up, down, side to side, during the opening scenes. Also I’m a basshead and need a sub to be really happy, so there’s some inherent bias against speakers. Overall though, I know speakers are much more expensive and complicated to set up right and I’m by no means disappointed. I now prefer the speakers to headphones for casual watching/listening. And I did form a nearly perfect equilateral triangle with the speaker angle, positions, and listening location.

HEADPHONES
Detail and imaging is no comparison, the headphone setup absolutely slaughters the speakers. Texture, dynamics, etc too. Fill in all the audiophile buzzwords and headphones win. Gaming too. Maybe a 5.1 - 9.2 system would be comparable, but I cannot game on 2.0 and have a comparably immersive experience. My “modest” setup still amazes me every time I fire it up. Not the same with the speakers.

OVERALL
I’m really happy to have both. My girlfriend thinks my headphones sound like crap and she likes the speakers. So much that she actually takes the time to walk over and dial in the pot instead of just using the TV remote/built in speakers. That says a lot. I’m really impressed by the speakers. Dollar for dollar I was not expecting the speakers to do so well vs. the headphones. But the headphones do objectively provide a better critical listening experience for music and gaming. Movies seem to be more of a personal preference, but moving forward, I’ll mostly go speakers, and probably all the time when I get a sub.

MY RECOMMENDATION
Don’t overspend in one or the other if you have a wide variety of applications. You can do pretty well 50/50 if you shop for deals on “bang for the buck” gear. My speakers were on close out for 33% off, and I bought my headphones used. The A-100 is a killer headphone amp too, so it’s win win. Just inconvenient to switch cables around since the speaker stuff is setup up near the tv and the headphones go next to me. Speakers are definitely a no brainer for shared listening experiences too. I’d be pretty sad if I overspent on headphones and had to listen to tv speakers the rest of my life every time I watch something with the old lady.

 

[Robert Wortman]

Comparing the two is kind of a waste. They are different experiences. If you want to try to reproduce what a live performance sounds like, speakers are the only thing that comes close. Headphones just don't produce the sense of a band arrayed in front of you or the body thump of a bass drum or guitar. If you want to hear the micro-detail of every snap, crackle, and pop no speaker will do what headphones can do simply because of the physical distance between your ears and the HF drivers. Mix engineers often use both. If you insist on comparing, you need to be comparing systems in the same fidelity range, not price range. Speakers are more expensive to make. Thousand dollar headphones are approaching the state of the art. Thousand dollar speakers are not. Other than the portability, the main reason for the popularity of headphones is the bang for the buck. You need to spend 5 to 10x the amount on speakers to get equivalent fidelity.