wgb113
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Posts
- 426
- Likes
- 44
How do you define it?
Around here and on some other audio forums it seems to be weighted very heavily by $$ with varying imaginary lines drawn in the sand. It's more obvious here perhaps than anywhere else due to the quantum leap of top-tier headphones in the past 5 or so years. Go back about that far and most flagship headphones ran about $300-$500 and very few people had them. There were exceptions but very few compared to today. As we all know Beats used celebrity, design and fashion to raise the bar where now many more average Joes wouldn't bat an eye at a $200-$300 pair of headphones to be seen wearing. And as most of here would admit, they aren't high fidelity in the traditionally accepted definition of the term - accurate, faithful reproduction of the original.
We were discussing it in another thread and rather than take it off topic I thought I'd start the discussion here. Please keep it civil.
To me a pair of AKG K712s are more HiFi than both a similarly price Sennheiser HD650 and a more than twice-the-price Oppo PM-1. I'd rate the sound of both of the latter as "Mid-Fi" if you will (really don't like that term - seems a bit of a condescending put-down) or entry-level HiFi. To me the AKGs are more neutral, hence more accurate, hence more faithful to the original - or to put it another way - they color the sound the least. The tell-tale sign of coloration for me is if obviously different recordings start to sound the same in one way or another.
For the record I don't believe that any transducer is perfect, particularly in the real world where environmental factors can reek havoc. But I think we can all (hopefully) agree that we've experience that goose-bump feeling at some point in this journey where the music we love simply sounds more real and natural than it did before. I think in 2015 you can get pretty far down that road for a modest investment. At that point we start to figure out what sort of path we'd like to like to chase down that last 5-10%. Some prefer a more laid-back sound that makes everything sound pretty good. That's what type of headphone I feel the HD650 is. That doesn't make me think of it as a "bad" headphone at all and I can see why so many like it and still prefer it over more modern (and expensive) flagships. I do feel that in terms of fidelity however that something along the lines of the HD800 is more deserving of that descriptor. It's honesty and faithfulness is the path I've chosen with my gear after having begun down the other path and realizing it wasn't for me. Yet it's that level of fidelity that many can't stand it which is the fun of this hobby. We may disagree on how to get there but at least our end-goal is a common one - a deeper enjoyment in our music.
So what are your thoughts?
Bill
Around here and on some other audio forums it seems to be weighted very heavily by $$ with varying imaginary lines drawn in the sand. It's more obvious here perhaps than anywhere else due to the quantum leap of top-tier headphones in the past 5 or so years. Go back about that far and most flagship headphones ran about $300-$500 and very few people had them. There were exceptions but very few compared to today. As we all know Beats used celebrity, design and fashion to raise the bar where now many more average Joes wouldn't bat an eye at a $200-$300 pair of headphones to be seen wearing. And as most of here would admit, they aren't high fidelity in the traditionally accepted definition of the term - accurate, faithful reproduction of the original.
We were discussing it in another thread and rather than take it off topic I thought I'd start the discussion here. Please keep it civil.
To me a pair of AKG K712s are more HiFi than both a similarly price Sennheiser HD650 and a more than twice-the-price Oppo PM-1. I'd rate the sound of both of the latter as "Mid-Fi" if you will (really don't like that term - seems a bit of a condescending put-down) or entry-level HiFi. To me the AKGs are more neutral, hence more accurate, hence more faithful to the original - or to put it another way - they color the sound the least. The tell-tale sign of coloration for me is if obviously different recordings start to sound the same in one way or another.
For the record I don't believe that any transducer is perfect, particularly in the real world where environmental factors can reek havoc. But I think we can all (hopefully) agree that we've experience that goose-bump feeling at some point in this journey where the music we love simply sounds more real and natural than it did before. I think in 2015 you can get pretty far down that road for a modest investment. At that point we start to figure out what sort of path we'd like to like to chase down that last 5-10%. Some prefer a more laid-back sound that makes everything sound pretty good. That's what type of headphone I feel the HD650 is. That doesn't make me think of it as a "bad" headphone at all and I can see why so many like it and still prefer it over more modern (and expensive) flagships. I do feel that in terms of fidelity however that something along the lines of the HD800 is more deserving of that descriptor. It's honesty and faithfulness is the path I've chosen with my gear after having begun down the other path and realizing it wasn't for me. Yet it's that level of fidelity that many can't stand it which is the fun of this hobby. We may disagree on how to get there but at least our end-goal is a common one - a deeper enjoyment in our music.
So what are your thoughts?
Bill