[Redcarmoose]

Search and learn the "McGurk Effect" and the "Rubber Hand Illusion"

♫ Hey, kid, rock 'n' roll, rock on, Ooh, my soul. Hey kid, boogie, too, did ya? ♫

Check "VALVE BASICS" by Harry Lythall




This is a very basic depiction of electron flow in a triode tube...

Now search and check out the "Dr Quantum: Wave particle duality and the observer!" cartoon

♫ And where do we go from here? Which is the way that's clear? ♫

First tier, second tier what does it all mean anyway? If I think one set cans has too much bass, the next guy might say there's not enough bass in those same cans, I think blind listening tests are the way to go, is first tier a price tag or a preference for certain qualities sometimes intangible ??

♫ Still looking for that blue jean baby queen Prettiest girl I ever seen See her shake on the movie screen, Jimmy Dean ♪

HD800.....Tier One
HD700.....Tier Two
AH-D 7000.....Tier One
AH-D 5000.....Tier Two
AH-D 2000..... Tier Three


HD650 used to be tier one now tier two
HD600 used to be tier one now tier two

 

[Gr8Desire]

My father reminded me often: "Paying too much is no great skill".

I have owned several flagships but never kept them. Two reasons:
 

• The high price never justified a slight increase or decrease in performance.
• I'd rather have three tier-2 phones than a single tier-1. I want variety for many reasons.

 
For me, audio is a hobby like cycling and photography.  Come to think of it: I own tier-2 racing bikes and cameras too  

 

[Redcarmoose]

My father reminded me often: [COLOR=000080]"Paying too much is no great skill".[/COLOR]


I have owned several flagships but never kept them. Two reasons:

 

1. The high price never justified a slight increase or decrease in performance.
2. I'd rather have three tier-2 phones than a single tier-1. I want variety for many reasons.

For me, audio is a [COLOR=800000]hobby[/COLOR] like cycling and photography.  Come to think of it: I own tier-2 racing bikes and cameras too  

That is one complete answer with practical justifications. Tier two cameras and bikes also.

 

[Ruben123]

  My father reminded me often: "Paying too much is no great skill".

I have owned several flagships but never kept them. Two reasons:
 

• The high price never justified a slight increase or decrease in performance.
• I'd rather have three tier-2 phones than a single tier-1. I want variety for many reasons.

 
For me, audio is a hobby like cycling and photography.  Come to think of it: I own tier-2 racing bikes and cameras too  

While not at the same price category, Im trying to find cheaper alternatives for my Havi B3P1 ($65) because while there is no thing wrong with them, Im under the impression cheaper phones can sound like maybe 95% of the more expensive at 20% of the price.
MP8320 are $7 and sound brighter than Havi, but some eq'ing can bring them close at around 10% of the price.

 

[Mr Rick]

I suppose there are people who actually buy headphones to listen to music, instead of buying them to listen to the headphones, and the amps.............and the DACs.

 

[cel4145]

And like you say, due to sound quality factors changing by 1/10th after 3x the price, many scoffed at more expensive headphones. . . . This is in the Sound Science thread and I guess I'm wondering if there will ever be a scientific way to reduce the general haphazardness we have all experienced in the Head-Fi learning curve of purchases?

Right. This is the Sound Science forum. So let's try unpacking some of the science problems with your first statement I've quoted

(a) How many is "many" who "scoffed" at these higher price headphones? In other words, can you be more precise, and how is your evidence gathered? Or, perhaps, is this qualification of how and why people evaluate higher price headphones as you have described biased in some way?

(b) How do you arrive at the assessment that 3X the price provides a 10% improvement? Is that assessment arrived at through unsighted testing of headphones? And where does the 10% measure come from? What the metric and scale that makes it 10% vs. 2%?

Then consider this statement you made in a later post

Even if $1000 extra got the listener into perfection territory, there is a buying group just not willing or able to justify the expense.

How are you defining perfection? What is the measure? Is it truly "perfection territory?" Or perhaps is it that the highest tier headphones are just the current best performance headphones, whereas perhaps 20 years go, the mid tier sound would have been the best performance options? Or, is this sense of perfection tied to an expectation bias about price?

In other words, it seems there are a LOT of assumptions for you to unpack in this question you have posed in this thread.

 

[cel4145]

The other amazing concept not mentioned yet is synergy. Nice synergy can let gear rise above it's price class. If that synergy sound is also by luck what you are looking for, then it's a match made in heaven.

Consider that synergy is very problematic from a sound science perspective. People attribute synergy based on sighted comparisons where audio science would often tell us that no audible difference may exist between dac/amp combo A and dac/amp combo B.

 

[peanuthead]

.......and as a result discount the performance of superior models?

Falling in love with second tier phones does not necessarily mean one has to discount the performance of higher tier models...
 
Why not love both?  Although I must admit I like the HD650 better than some of the "superior" headphones I've tried/owned...

 

[toolio]

We all have different audio preferences, which renders comparisons useless. And often "second tier" offers 90% of the subjective audio quality for 50% or less of the price of top tier. Case in point for me: AKG Q701s. Much cheaper than they once were, and still great.

 

[vid]

You need to define your tiering before you get to ask the how and why.

 

[H20Fidelity]

Each headphone will have different positives and negatives, attributes or downsides, the key is to find one within your budget that ticks as many boxes possible then hopefully get the hell out of here. Though what I'm saying is you need to know what you want before that. I like my Grado 325e, it's my preferred signature, tonality, detail requirements, but I also think my Sennheiser HD25 which I rate much lower overall has this unique tone despite its much weaker technical stance. And it could be something simple as that, one little aspect which makes a person's choice of requirement.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

HD800.....Tier One
HD700.....Tier Two
AH-D 7000.....Tier One
AH-D 5000.....Tier Two
AH-D 2000..... Tier Three


HD650 used to be tier one now tier two
HD600 used to be tier one now tier two

 
So, Redcarmoose, you've identified some of the headphones in each of your "Tiers" - but how did you come to that conclusion?
 
There's obviously a strong correlation with price, but we all know that there isn't a direct relationship regarding price versus objective performance.
 
Are you placing them based on subjective performance?  If so, whose judgement?  If it's not one person's opinion only, how did you compile the data of multiple peoples' preferences?
 
Are you placing them based on objective performance?  If so, are you basing it on blind testing or measurements?  If you're basing it on measurements, how did you mathematically weight the importance of different measurements?  If so, how did you establish the validity of the weighting?  Speaking of weighting, when considering target frequency responses, are we considering free field, diffuse field, or Harman's in-room speaker target response curve as ideal, and why?


Obviously I don't really expect anyone except mad scientists like Sean Olive and Floyd Toole to have done something like that (and Tyll to publish the results online and/or do his own testing).
 
But my point is that categorizing headphones into "Tiers" isn't necessarily helpful or even providing any useful information.
 
 
Since the subject of the HD 600 seems to come up more often with respect of performance compared to "price flagship" headphones by the different major manufacturers, I'll at least go so far as to address my subjective thoughts on the matter.
 
Compared to some of the "price flagship" headphones made by various manufacturers, the HD 600 frequency response is flatter (relative to one or more of the different available target curves) than a number of them.  Since we know from Harman's research on the topic, frequency response is by far the most critical aspect with regards to perceived sound quality.  So can a headphone truly be in your so-called "First Tier" if it is measurably and very much so audibly worse in that respect compared to a "Second Tier" or "Third Tier" headphone?  Or are we throwing science out the door and saying that a perceived flat response is not important or at least is less important in these headphone "Tiers"?  Or are we saying that since frequency response is very easily corrected using parametric equalization, whereas harmonic and other non-linear distortions are not, it is okay to ignore?

 

[sonitus mirus]

I listen mostly through speakers instead of headphones, so I've always attempted to find headphones that sound as close to what I hear with speakers.  I prefer the Denon D5K headphones with angled pads and Markl mods to tame the loose bass compared to a stock D7K.  I know there are flatter responding headphones with superior technical specifications and much better user reviews, but I don't think there are many available that are as fun to listen to from the limited experience I have had with different types of headphones.  I will spend money on improving my room acoustics before I would consider dropping any additional money on a pair of headphones.  
 
In my situation, I'm only going to get a very small improvement, if any, with more expensive headphones, and I would probably still prefer my speakers by a significant margin.
 

 

[Redcarmoose]

So, Redcarmoose, you've identified some of the headphones in each of your "Tiers" - but how did you come to that conclusion?

There's obviously a strong correlation with price, but we all know that there isn't a direct relationship regarding price versus objective performance.

Are you placing them based on subjective performance?  If so, whose judgement?  If it's not one person's opinion only, how did you compile the data of multiple peoples' preferences?

Are you placing them based on objective performance?  If so, are you basing it on blind testing or measurements?  If you're basing it on measurements, how did you mathematically weight the importance of different measurements?  If so, how did you establish the validity of the weighting?  Speaking of weighting, when considering target frequency responses, are we considering free field, diffuse field, or Harman's in-room speaker target response curve as ideal, and why?



Obviously I don't really expect anyone except mad scientists like Sean Olive and Floyd Toole to have done something like that (and Tyll to publish the results online and/or do his own testing).

But my point is that categorizing headphones into "Tiers" isn't necessarily helpful or even providing any useful information.


Since the subject of the HD 600 seems to come up more often with respect of performance compared to "price flagship" headphones by the different major manufacturers, I'll at least go so far as to address my subjective thoughts on the matter.

Compared to some of the "price flagship" headphones made by various manufacturers, the HD 600 frequency response is flatter (relative to one or more of the different available target curves) than a number of them.  Since we know from Harman's research on the topic, frequency response is by far the most critical aspect with regards to perceived sound quality.  So can a headphone truly be in your so-called "First Tier" if it is measurably and very much so audibly worse in that respect compared to a "Second Tier" or "Third Tier" headphone?  Or are we throwing science out the door and saying that a perceived flat response is not important or at least is less important in these headphone "Tiers"?  Or are we saying that since frequency response is very easily corrected using parametric equalization, whereas harmonic and other non-linear distortions are not, it is okay to ignore?

Your post is truly what this thread is about. I placed the tier system only as a price bracket and do find members at times dropping a model like the HD800 for the HD600. Still I am no way discounting folks with the HD800. It is the personal experience, signature preference and system synergy along with music genre matching and wearability that creates these choices.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Your post is truly what this thread is about. I placed the tier system only as a price bracket and do find members at times dropping a model like the HD800 for the HD600. Still I am no way discounting folks with the HD800. It is the personal experience, signature preference and system synergy along with music genre matching and wearability that creates these choices.

Ahhhhh?....and price along with the learning curve of sound signature preferences. So there could be a situation where an older headphone is more realistic ( with flat response ) and the listener buys a newer more expensive colored headphone only to end up loving the original headphone for important reasons. Not to be negative here but I do see many of the newer headphones in top tier pricing being also very big and heavy. We can never underestimate the wearability issue here.