[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brighten /img/forum/go_quote.gif I one of those who thinks headphones are better than live music. Ever been to a metal concert? If anyone is seeking audiophile sound, a pair of SR-80s and a used Melos SHA-1 is just about as good as it gets for 500 bones (to me).

Meh, you'll never get the same experience as live if the venue has good harmonics and the performers (and equipement bieng used at the live performance) is up to scratch. As far as metal goes, headphones nearly always triumph in terms of audio quality.

 

[nullstring]

I think this poll would've been more useful had you put the max at 2000...
seems about right that half the people would spend more than $550..
now would they spend 1000? IDK..

I know my max is higher than 550... but how much higher.. not sure..

 

[ARwCoco]

100$ or less, if your source is an unamped DAP
Senn PX100 or Denon 1001 get the job done

250$ or less, if your source includes an amp

As I have stated before, when you get to the point that you are listening to how much you have spent ,
rather than the contents of the music, it is time to consider
" is it really worth the extra $$ spent " ?

YMMV .........

 

[wae5]

There are too many cheap phones that do it all to pay more than $100 for phones. Examples: K501, MS1, SR60, SR80, AD700, KSC75, MX500. If you pay more than this, it's your personal preference rather than any radical increase in SQ that's nudging the money out of your wallet. As the economy continues to tank in the coming months, this will become more and more obvious.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wae5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are too many cheap phones that do it all to pay more than $100 for phones. Examples: K501, MS1, SR60, SR80, AD700, KSC75, MX500. If you pay more than this, it's your personal preference rather than any radical increase in SQ that's nudging the money out of your wallet.

Wrong.

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wae5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are too many cheap phones that do it all to pay more than $100 for phones. Examples: K501, MS1, SR60, SR80, AD700, KSC75, MX500. If you pay more than this, it's your personal preference rather than any radical increase in SQ that's nudging the money out of your wallet. As the economy continues to tank in the coming months, this will become more and more obvious.

Agree. There are lots of great phones right around the $100 mark. It's fine to pay more if you want to, but there's a lot of ace gear to be had for cheap.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucky /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agree. There are lots of great phones right around the $100 mark. It's fine to pay more if you want to, but there's a lot of ace gear to be had for cheap.

Some people want to pay more not just because they "want to" (i.e., as if they just want to piss away money), but because there are many phones that cost more than $100 that offer a substantial increase in sound quality to their ears. If some people believe that $100 gets them all they need and want, more power to them. But it is wrong to suggest that more expensive phones don't offer radical improvements in sound quality to listeners who have the capability of appreciating them. Maybe you were not suggesting that, but your post, in conjunction with the earlier one you quoted, suggests that the $100 mark is fine for everyone, and of course it is not.

 

[subtle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wrong.

Precisely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some people want to pay more not just because they "want to" (i.e., as if they just want to piss away money), but because there are many phones that cost more than $100 that offer a substantial increase in sound quality to their ears. If some people believe that $100 gets them all they need and want, more power to them. But it is wrong to suggest that more expensive phones don't offer radical improvements in sound quality to listeners who have the capability of appreciating them.

I couldn't agree more. It is completely false and extremely ignorant to make the statement that phones over $100 don't offer any radical increase in SQ. I mean when you think about, it's just plain laughable to imply that there is a large number of people here, typically those more educated with better jobs and having the money to spend, that have all had the wool pulled over their eyes and supposedly duped in to believing they're paying for nothing. That's just plain asinine.

Higher priced headphones offer a completely different, and vastly improved, level of refinement over their lower-tiered brethren. It is noticeable to anyone with a basic level of hearing and is fundamentally undeniable. To make the assertion that this is not the case, and that people are just convincing themselves of such simply because they spent the money, is the very definition of being foolish and displaying willful ignorance.

 

[Goit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wae5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are too many cheap phones that do it all to pay more than $100 for phones. Examples: K501, MS1, SR60, SR80, AD700, KSC75, MX500. If you pay more than this, it's your personal preference rather than any radical increase in SQ that's nudging the money out of your wallet. As the economy continues to tank in the coming months, this will become more and more obvious.

I think that more expensive headphones can have more accurate sound than 100 dollar headphones. But the problem here is does that technical property translate into more enjoyment? I don't think so, because you are listening to the music, not tiny details in there, like a fingernail hitting on a fingerboard or musicians breathing. Thus I agree with you if you are essentially saying that a more accurate headphone doesn't mean more pleasure.

And add that to the fact that some expensive headphones deliberately distort the sound to color it. Then it's even worse technically than a 100 dollar headphone that is neutral.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goit /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that more expensive headphones can have more accurate sound than 100 dollar headphones. But the problem here is does that technical property translate into more enjoyment? I don't think so, because you are listening to the music, not tiny details in there, like a fingernail hitting on a fingerboard or musicians breathing. Thus I agree with you if you are essentially saying that a more accurate headphone doesn't mean more pleasure. And add that to the fact that some expensive headphones deliberately distort the sound to color it. Then it's even worse technically than a 100 dollar headphone that is neutral.

Detail retrieval isn't the only improvement that higher end headphones have. The improvements are pretty much across the board.

As for deliberately distorting the sound, which ones are you speaking of?

 

[TopPop]

Hey, moonboy, how did you end up liking the new tubes with the Opera?

Sorry for the OT/threadjack.

 

[Goit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The improvements are pretty much across the board.

What are those? A headphone's job is to reproduce the original acoustic environment in the recording room as picked up by the microphone as faithfully as possible. Thus revealing more details, more accurate frequency response, etc... means that a headphone is doing it's job better. Now, looking at some frequency response graphs, some expensive headphones like the Audio Technicas are just awful, worse than 100 dollar headphones.

Quote:

As for deliberately distorting the sound, which ones are you speaking of?

The Grados are a famous example, the SR325i is more expensive than 100 dollars, but it doesn't sound anywhere near what the original recording room sounded like. Thus it's technically worse than 100 dollar headphones that are more accurate.

And I didn't just say "detail", I said "accuracy", which detail is a part of. You are suppose to hear what the microphone hears.

The higher end phones can be (not all are) more accurate in sound reproduction, but the tiny improvements would be unlikely to bring more pleasure, as when you are listening you are listening to the music and not for the sound signatures and the technical tid bits.

 

[Brighten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times /img/forum/go_quote.gif Meh, you'll never get the same experience as live if the venue has good harmonics and the performers (and equipement bieng used at the live performance) is up to scratch. As far as metal goes, headphones nearly always triumph in terms of audio quality.

Yeah, I guess I forgot about Stevie Ray Vaughan.

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brighten /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I guess I forgot about Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Nope, I don't go to metal concerts anymore. I'm sure there are some that sound great (though I don't know if you're bieng sarcastic), but from my experience if yet to be impressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goit /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that more expensive headphones can have more accurate sound than 100 dollar headphones. But the problem here is does that technical property translate into more enjoyment? I don't think so, because you are listening to the music, not tiny details in there, like a fingernail hitting on a fingerboard or musicians breathing. And add that to the fact that some expensive headphones deliberately distort the sound to color it. Then it's even worse technically than a 100 dollar headphone that is neutral.

Those tiny details are part of the music though, you would hear it live, you would here it if you wher in the room they where recording in. Hence it's part of the music. You will also here a greater detail in the timber of the voice and other instruments, better spacial imaging and the list goes on with a 'better' pair of headphones.

As for the colouration of music, it's a little more complicated then what you seem to suggest (i'd say no trully neatral headphone exists), that coupled with most microphones not bieng neatral even further complicates matters. Listen to an Allesandro MS1 and then to a Grado MS-1 or a HD555 and then a he60 and try telling me the quality difference is not night and day.

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some people want to pay more not just because they "want to" (i.e., as if they just want to piss away money), but because there are many phones that cost more than $100 that offer a substantial increase in sound quality to their ears. If some people believe that $100 gets them all they need and want, more power to them. But it is wrong to suggest that more expensive phones don't offer radical improvements in sound quality to listeners who have the capability of appreciating them. Maybe you were not suggesting that, but your post, in conjunction with the earlier one you quoted, suggests that the $100 mark is fine for everyone, and of course it is not.

What I'm suggesting is that it's possible to be happy at the $100 mark. Not everyone is, of course, but I think the possibility exists for everyone. :O)