[saint.panda]

The first time headphone shopping, I bought a pair of Sony MDR 605 LP because it had the "most" bass among all headphones present (HD 580, Beyerdynamic DT 531, ...). Now I'm worrying about my headphone cable's conductor type.
I suppose with time and experience, one comes to develop an increased fastidiousness for sound quality and to acquire the knowledge of where to listen for differences, yet also the hybris to often tell differences when there are none or calling them significant when they are marginally small or both. Nevertheless, your brother would have to be a special breed not to hear the differences between a pair of cheap Sonys and a pair of HD 600 from a tube amp, be it for the bass alone. But maybe he didn't like the veil.

 

[jpr703]

Hearing is a sense, just like any other. Some people see better than others, some have a more refined sense of taste, and some hear better. You wouldn't get far trying to sell a 42 inch plasma TV to a blind man...

 

[plus_c]

I think it has something to do with the kind of ear training you get too. When I was in band, I'd listen for notes being sharp or flat, but with recordings I wouldn't necessarily care about sound quality unless the artifacts were blindingly obvious. It wasn't until I had some training in audio production that I started caring about detail, sound quality, et cetera.

 

[BlindTiger]

He is your brother and that is part of the issue.
If both of your are stubborn both will not admit wrong.
This is one of many disagreements that will be coming up.
Such as, tastes in hot girls (daria hipster vs l. lohan), music, food, furniture when one of you get's your own place, and most importantly money or lack of.
It's best not to let it get to you because eventually something will happen.
You don't get peed at all the IPOD white earphone wearers, do you?
if not, let it be.

 

[MD1032]

I've heard these lower-end Sony's, and you don't even need decent music to hear the difference, though it does help. They're just dog-awful. The mids are so scratchy it sounds like the music is playing through steel wool. High-end details? Absent. Bass? Bloated. Pretty awful all right.

 

[ooheadsoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 I can't understand this. My whole family can tell the difference when I get them some good audio equipment or give them a listen to my setups. As a clarinet player, I can't understand not only not caring about the differences, but not being able to tell the differences. That is downright scary, but maybe it's because I've got freaky ultra-sensitive ears and maybe his ears aren't all that great. Woodwind tones and overtones, when you break them down, aren't all that hard to differentiate.

It may not really be a matter of differentiating, but a matter of attitude and taste. For example, I play violin and viola, and I sell them too. Frankly, sure, I can tell you the difference between violin A and violin B. But which one sounds better? I don't care, just play some music already. A good player makes any instrument sound good. That is, in a situation where two instruments are of roughly "similar" quality. To me, they just sound different, not necessarily better vs. worse. It takes a pretty shoddy violin to make me dislike it. When it comes to the reproduction of the sound of a violin over speakers, a lot of the time, a violin is a violin is a violin. I'm hearing more of the recording technique than the violin itself. Specifically, one pair of speakers or headphones will present the violin differently than another. First, the mind goes - "different but not significant, it's still a violin." After all, I don't know or care what the original violin sounded like, and I'll likely never know...or care. Then that boils down to "not significant."

Something my friend once told me is that audiophilia is something that must be developed or trained. You aren't born with it. Think about your own past. It most likely took a revelation of some type to make you realize that what you were listening to on your family tv or radio was "unacceptable." It was that way for me, even though I've played music all my life.

 

[Enverxis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braillediver “How come some people just CAN'T seem to hear the difference?” What is music and what do people actually listen too? It’s all perception. Some people listen to different aspects of music like Bass lines, Rhythm, Timing, Drums or Guitars. What aspects are you perceiving as “Different”.

Thats what I said - the school kid will only really pay attention to the vocals and bass, if the bass is boomy and slow they will say "woah thats some good bass!"
When I give people a listen to my KSC-35s i usually get "these have good bass, or these are better than mine" and with my MS-2s i get "these are clear".

 

[Twigs]

The thing is for me is that all my friends and family members can hear differences between all the headphones I have, but in the end they all prefer my Triports over all my headphones, even my beloved Grado SR-60's. Bose has definately done something right if everyone I know likes the Triports over the SR-60's.

 

[MD1032]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ooheadsoo It may not really be a matter of differentiating, but a matter of attitude and taste. For example, I play violin and viola, and I sell them too. Frankly, sure, I can tell you the difference between violin A and violin B. But which one sounds better? I don't care, just play some music already. A good player makes any instrument sound good. That is, in a situation where two instruments are of roughly "similar" quality. To me, they just sound different, not necessarily better vs. worse. It takes a pretty shoddy violin to make me dislike it. When it comes to the reproduction of the sound of a violin over speakers, a lot of the time, a violin is a violin is a violin. I'm hearing more of the recording technique than the violin itself. Specifically, one pair of speakers or headphones will present the violin differently than another. First, the mind goes - "different but not significant, it's still a violin." After all, I don't know or care what the original violin sounded like, and I'll likely never know...or care. Then that boils down to "not significant." Something my friend once told me is that audiophilia is something that must be developed or trained. You aren't born with it. Think about your own past. It most likely took a revelation of some type to make you realize that what you were listening to on your family tv or radio was "unacceptable." It was that way for me, even though I've played music all my life.

Well to me that seems naive. For me, either a clarinet is better or it's worse. It takes a very rare situation to find two clarinets that are truly comparable, but maybe it's different with violins. When we were trying out clarinets in Sam Ash, I has two R13's I was trying out and one was brighter than the other, and blowed for freely. My mom, who was there, could tell the difference and liked the one I chose. (Unfortunately that same one is right now requiring major repairs) Sure, there are instances where my clarinet will have a better high-end than my instructor's, but not the tone, but there's still a fine line when you're on the playing end between what you like and don't like. Maybe this guy just has an "attitude" where he just doesn't care, in which case, he's not going very far in music at all.

 

[Edwood]

My friend who says he has permanent hearing damage, claims he can hear the difference between headphones, but not between sources, file types, and amps.

Keep in mind, we spend a lot of time listening to our gear and have conditioned ourselves to distinguish more minute differences.

-Ed

 

[RYCeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twigs The thing is for me is that all my friends and family members can hear differences between all the headphones I have, but in the end they all prefer my Triports over all my headphones, even my beloved Grado SR-60's. Bose has definately done something right if everyone I know likes the Triports over the SR-60's.

Bose Triports is $129.00 instead of comparing to $60.00 Grado SR60, why don't you compare them to Sony eggo d66 $89.00, ATH-A500 $109.00 or similar priced $100-$150 Senn, Grado, AKG, Beyer.

 

[Twigs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT Bose Triports is $129.00 instead of comparing to $60.00 Grado SR60, why don't you compare them to Sony eggo d66 $89.00, ATH-A500 $109.00 or similar priced $100-$150 Senn, Grado, AKG, Beyer.

Well the users of this board think that the Triports are woth 20$, so i tought that the SR-60's would blow them out of the water and they do (for me atleast). i also don't any of the headphones u listed, but I wish I did. I would love to listen to the differences.

 

[Elec]

I would've put the Triports I heard at about the $50-60 range. They were better than most of the cheapie phones you run across but not worth the asking price.

Anyway, my guess is that it's a combination of factors. Probably that they don't care, don't understand why they should care, and don't have the means with which to quantify differences. Most people who have listened to my headphones will say they sound "good" and some will admit to being somewhat amazed or that they sound better than xyz. But they can't say in what way they are good, and they're not willing to spend similar amounts for similar quality. What they're getting isn't worth the outlay to them. They don't have the time and energy to really closely examine and understand what is available, which is why brand names and advertising work fabulously. People like Starbuck's not because it is the most fabulous coffee on the planet, but because it has a reputation and is expensive. They might be able to tell you that a cup of Starbuck's tastes better than a cup of Folgers, but I'd be willing to wager they can't say specifically WHY they like it better. Can't give a definitive analysis of the flavors or drinking experience that explains why one is better than the other. Same with audio. They haven't got the tools or just don't care.

Here's an example. It seems a lot of people on this forum like nice watches. I like Timex and Casio. Wanna know why? 1) They cost 20 bucks. 2) They keep good time. 3) They're nearly indestructible and could last decades with battery changes. Butbutbut! you say. There are finer timepieces out there! They've got fancy features, are works of art, fantastic jewelry, and appreciate in value! But I don't CARE about those things. For me, a watch tells time, and a $2000 Rolex does not do that job "better" than a $20 Timex, regardless of the fact that it may be a better watch. For the vast majority of people, headphones (or audio gear in general) play music. Sony headphones are cheap, look cool (arguably), and play your songs. What more could you want, asks Joe Public?

Most people listen to music for the content, rather than the quality or presentation. I'm not an artist, so if I look at a painting, what I can tell you about it is what it's a painting of, what I think of the colors used, and an overall impression of the piece. I have no clue (and sometimes no cares) about the overall style, painting technique, works it may be derivative of, medium used, or anything else of that nature that a trained someone might be interested in. When your average guy or girl puts on the phones and fires up the iPod, they're not thinking about the presentation or the sound quality - to them it's not about that, it's about the SONG. They either don't get that better gear would make their songs sound better, or simply have an understanding that it wouldn't increase their enjoyment of the music (or at least not to a degree commensurate with the cost). Which is understandable.

 

[knestle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmmmmm I'm surprised no one has really said this yet (unless snake said it, I didn't have time to read that post ): Give him a week with your headphones only, and then let him use his sony's. I guarantee that he'll be able to tell a difference then. All this talk about burn-in for headphones - it's at least partially psychological. Your brain has to get used to the sound, and I don't think he would necessarily get that after a couple songs. It might take him longer since his ears are untrained, though. Ignorance is bliss, eh

When I was younger, and had good hearing, and was into good stereo equipment, when ever I upgraded to a new piece of gear I kept the old gear for a few weeks and then swapped it back into my system for a checkout.

Usually, when first listening to the new unit, it was difficult to hear any drastic improvement. But after waiting a few weeks and swapping the old piece back into the audio chain the difference was immidiately obvious.

 

[ooheadsoo]

If you feel that things are always obviously better than something else, you are probably a lot more biased towards a certain sound than I am. So a clarinet is a bit brighter than the other. So another one has a more reedy thinner tone. To me, these are just differences. This doesn't make me naive. I can describe these differences to you in tiny minute nuances, but I can't tell you which one is better. Certain sounds and tones are called for at different times. Maybe I can tell you which one I prefer...maybe, but better? Chances are I won't have much of a preference unless there is a big difference. But that's not the real point. It's when you hear a recording of a clarinet, it doesn't sound like what you hear in real life that you just adapt your mind and ears to it.