[nicholars]

Well I would say that cost  certainly correlates to actual sound quality... For example measured distortion and FR. Although not neccessarily in a linear curve.. For example a pair of £800 is not 50% better than a pair of £400. And past a point the more you spend the less improvement you get...
 
But I don't think that price correlates at all to sound signatures people may prefer. Beats by Dre would be a prime example of this. I expect a lot of people would prefer the sound signature of beats by dre to somehing like the Beyer T1 even though it is 5x the price.

 

[Beretta]

Quote:

 
I've found that - fortunately or unfortunately, cost generally (not always) does correlete with what one finds to be a pleasing sound.

 
Having experience with both state-of-the-art, and low cost equipment, I have found that with today's technological advances, even very low cost equipment can sometimes perform in "specific ares" as well.  Obviously the user's skills and expertise, to correctly place lower cost equipment to perform is critical and needs to be specifically used for it's dedicated function, or it will be limited in many areas, or possibly not be reliable, HOWEVER, if it is correctly utilized for a give specific function it would be foolish if anyone would argue otherwise as I can point out many examples of this, including illustrations of companies like Sony, that intentionally have  discontinued or limited the functions of a product to prevent  conflict to it's higher cost models.  A good example of this one was a test I once did was with a $3500 Sony camera (quickly discontinued) compared to a top of the line model costing about 46,000 dollars.
In a controlled test condition we could not easily make any conclusive statements as to what was better, the test was done using live models, and resolution test charts. 
 
Unlike in audio that CAN BE simply inconclusive, being that one persons opinion can be totally subjective based on taste, or the ability or the actual ability to distinguish sound the same as others, his/her opinion can be basically worthless,  only to be used as a guide  and recommendation based on trust.    With video or print, it is much less subjective as it can be clearly and easily looked at by everyone and evaluated analytically with test charts, and color readings. (so please realize the fact that unless someone has been tested by an ear doctor, and has been working in a professional recording studio with engineers and WAS ACTUALLY AT THE RECORDING of the session, to know what the ACTUAL SOUND WAS TO LIKE, it is TOTALY subjective and personal).

Further more in Audio even a 10K system can sound poor if the room acoustics are not correct, this being said a lower cost system that is correctly placed in treated environment can outperform.

I don't know much about headphones,(as I don't really like them)  however the issues should be the same, as correctly selecting of ALL the equipment "as a package" (not individually) so  the cost of the equipment is less significant then the correct alignment, just as gold plated overpriced junk, will not make something perform better then a correct alloy of metal.

So the question is other then the better construction, better overall performance, and reliability needed in a working professional environment, and total accuracy needed for an engineer, what is  IN YOUR OPINION, the best head set to use to pay digital 24 bit file from a computer?



Lets try this question in a different way - use my new post:
BEST headphones/setup with a MacBook Air


 

 

[nicholars]

I think a lot of the reason that headphone sound quality does usually correlate with price is not because it actually costs that much to get good sound quality, but because manufaturers purposely degrade the quality of sound to fit them into price brackets. I mean for example a headphone manufacturer could probably release a pair of headphones that sound as good as HD800 or whatever for about £250 and still make a profit. However this would completely devalue all of the higher priced products. Its a conspiracy dammit!
 
Same with speakers, you get the endtry level speakers for around £300 which are decent and then it jumps straight up to £1000 for the next model in the range... This is not reflected by £700 more materials, R&D or whatever.

 

[Beretta]

Correct.  I know this as a matter of fact first hand from companies I worked with. But sometimes they do let out a  product to test the market.
 

 

[Bigshow33]

OP, what kind of sound sig do you like? What types of music do you listen to? Do you want an open or closed headphone? 

 

[Beretta]

thanks for your help. Honestly I'm not really sure when it comes to headphones. However as far as speakers are concerned I simply look for "realism."

Growing up in New York City and spending time in recording studios & small clubs gave me a strong feeling of what sounds "real" (even if the sound was terrible in some clubs).  What I look for is "believability" in the sound, as if you are at the event. If the sound does not make you feel in that location, then it is not in my opinion "audiophile; regardless of the cost of the system, it fails.  
 
Even expensive systems don't always give you this dimensional realism, clarity, and spectral separation. In my opinion a good near field studio setup in a acoustically correctly treated room, helps achieve this better then many expensive overpriced systems that audiophiles think are so good.

As for accuracy, and for all other issues, I think most audiophiles are simply blowing a lot of hot air, and selling a lot of snake oil. A reviewer should understand the following before discrediting any audio product that they think is worse then other equipment.  Unless they know in fact what the original material actually was like or unless they have the product technically analyzed with known reference test materials.

First of all, one needs to know exactly how the sound was at the recording time, and then they need to actually experience the recording made at that recording studio by the artist with that setup used, as it will have a distinct sound quality regardless, this being said, this sound is what the artist thought was correct.   

BUT even so once the recording leaves the studio and comes into your place, unless "perfect equipment" was used during the taping it will sound different, and we all know perfect recording does not exist, and further, the output monitors will create a very specific "feel" that can only be reproduced by that exact or very similar equipment.

One needs to understand that, many artist use a specific brand of studio monitors specifically to get the desired sound they want, so without one knowing or using the exact same reference speaker is inconclusive.
 
The actual recording CAN also be totally different due to poor equipment or other factors, that a reference system will later show as a bad  recording. This is a very large problem in terms of reproduction and unless someone knows EXACTLY the sound at the time of the recording that was intended by the artist/engineer, evaluation is totally nonsense, and an accurate reproduction is meaningless as your perfect system has now reproduced sound NOT as it was intended.

Yes this means that to be a true audiophile, you would need to build the same system that gave the artist the same result in his/her studio, as that would be the ONLY correct sound that was intended by the artist, (if you want an accurate and  real reproduction of a Stradivarius, then you better get a Stradivarius).  But trying to guess or duplicate different systems is unrealistic and impractical, so all we can do is to correctly reproduce what is on the tape and hope it was recorded well and sounds as it was intended.

Simply analyzing the recorded information to determine if your system is translating all the material correctly is not the full picture.

So as to your question, I (as most people) do not know what the original recording was like or how it actually sounded, nor do i have test equipment to analyze my headphone with special test audio.  All I can do is to try to find a  system that gives me the most "realistic" believable live" presence regardless if it is 100% accurate or not, because also  accuracy cannot be determined anyway by just the headphone as other components can cause issues and coloration.   
 
sorry for the length of this post, but here are my 2 cents on this issue.


 


 


 

 

[roma101]

Like you, I have always been after realism. Timbre is very important to me. Do yourself a favor and check out the Yamaha PRO 500. In the end, all that matters are your ears. It's hard for most headphones to do timbre as accurately as I prefer but the PRO 500 is what's come closest yet. Other alternatives can be a modded T50RP or the IEM Panasonic RP-HJE900. I prefer the 500 over both of them though.
 
The 500 has a prominent low end but fairly tight and detailed, mids that fall perfectly in line, and highs that are extended, sparkly and the most detailed I've heard in a closed can without sounding harsh. Piano, vocals and cymbals are hard to reproduce right on a headphone. The 500 does an amazing job with them. They have a good sense of weight and decay. Strings sound very natural and so do drums. The detail is all there and there's a great sense of space and imaging.
 
The only caveat of the 500 is the size/comfort for portable use. But it hasn't been a deal-breaker for me because the SQ is pretty amazing to my ears.

 

[Beretta]

Thanks Roma, I will look for them.  Just wondering if an amp will be needed or they can be used directly from my Duet 2  -


 

 

[roma101]

No amp needed whatsoever.