[petedgr8]

Quote:

 
Responding to what others have been saying, I don't understand why I can't post at all unless I own a certain headphone. I never try to fool someone into believing I have any experience when I don't, but if I have already made the research I can tell him to look in a certain direction. "Hey you want something with this signature? Maybe this, I never tried it, but from what I've read it's close to what you want". I don't try to have my opinion be valued as much as someone who owns the model, but if no one else will help it's better than nothing. And I always mention what experience I had with said model.
 

I think most agree with this.  You're doing it right.  
 
 

 

[tribestros]

I think most of this guy's annoyances stem from "I want $300 noise cancelling headphones." Reply: "Audio Technica ATH-M50"

 

[skamp]

The ANC is good and probably justifies a lot of the price, but to the most important thing is the sound itself

I disagree. You buy the QC15s for the noise cancelling first and foremost. Sound quality isn't necessarily the number 1 priority (and I think they sound very good).

 

[rainblack]

Quote:

You shouldn't make blind recommendations, but there is such a things as a price/performance ratio.

True, but "expensive sound" isn't for every ear to like. "Performance" for some is "dull and boring" for others (and many newbies).
Some people really enjoy bloated, over-emphasized boomy trashy bass and they get recommended 5-600$ headphones which they will most probably regret buying.
 
Recommending properly is a hard and risky business hehe
 

 

[tribestros]

This, as well.  A lot of people like the sound of the Beats.
 
Quote:

True, but "expensive sound" isn't for every ear to like. "Performance" for some is "dull and boring" for others (and many newbies).
Some people really enjoy bloated, over-emphasized boomy trashy bass and they get recommended 5-600$ headphones which they will most probably regret buying.
 
Recommending properly is a hard and risky business hehe
 

 

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

True, but "expensive sound" isn't for every ear to like. "Performance" for some is "dull and boring" for others (and many newbies).
Some people really enjoy bloated, over-emphasized boomy trashy bass and they get recommended 5-600$ headphones which they will most probably regret buying.
 
Recommending properly is a hard and risky business hehe
 

 
Every time I recommend something I know, and someone actually says they'll follow my recommendation I always think of posting "No wait! Maybe someone else has something better! I KNOW NOTHING!"

 
Quote:

I think most of this guy's annoyances stem from "I want $300 noise cancelling headphones." Reply: "Audio Technica ATH-M50"

"I want IEMs" - "M50!"
"I'm looking for a new amp" - "The M50 have very low output impedance"
"Hey anyone know what wire I should use to make an interconnect?" - "All my interconnects use oxygen-free M50 and for the connector maybe a 3.5mm M50"

 

[jgray91]

Quote:

I should but the sennheiser HD438 at 40$ so I could go on Summit-Fi and recommend the HD800! But yes, Grado has a very characteristic house sound (not house music!).
 
Responding to what others have been saying, I don't understand why I can't post at all unless I own a certain headphone. I never try to fool someone into believing I have any experience when I don't, but if I have already made the research I can tell him to look in a certain direction. "Hey you want something with this signature? Maybe this, I never tried it, but from what I've read it's close to what you want". I don't try to have my opinion be valued as much as someone who owns the model, but if no one else will help it's better than nothing. And I always mention what experience I had with said model.
 
I still think the QC aren't worth their price. People always boast "amazing comfort" like that adds 100$ to the price, you can make a pair of DIY pads for like 10$ or you can search for comfy replacement pads. The ANC is good and probably justifies a lot of the price, but to the most important thing is the sound itself, and they don't sound like 300$ headphones. I'd be pressed to say they sound like 150$ headphones really.

I think what OP has some gripe about is the blind, parroting recommendations without that "I never owned/heard this personally" caveat and just acted as if they own it and know it intimately. Oh and also parrot-recommending 'phones that are clearly not what would fit the OP of a "need recommendation" thread. IMO.
 

 

[liamstrain]

While I largely agree - there are things that we can know without having had to directly experience them. This can either be by aggregating information from those who do have direct experience, or from scientific measurement, and other inductive and deductive reasoning methods.
 
For instance, I do not have to have heard a specific OTL tube amplifier, in order to suggest that because it is an OTL tube amplifier, and the vast majority of them have relatively high output impedance and lower current output - especially within a given price point, that it might not be well suited to a low sensitivity, low impedance headphone.
 
Having heard a specific headphone before giving a thumbs up or thumbs down is great, but in at many cases, is not always strictly necessary to giving accurate information about that product. And more to the point, is not a guarantee that the person who does have experience with it, is necessarily any good at knowing what they are hearing and why and in any position to give useful information either. 

 

[RayleighSilvers]

Quote:

 
Every time I recommend something I know, and someone actually says they'll follow my recommendation I always think of posting "No wait! Maybe someone else has something better! I KNOW NOTHING!"

 

"I want IEMs" - "M50!"
"I'm looking for a new amp" - "The M50 have very low output impedance"
"Hey anyone know what wire I should use to make an interconnect?" - "All my interconnects use oxygen-free M50 and for the connector maybe a 3.5mm M50"

"I want something that sounds like the m50 but isn't the m50" - "The m50 limited edition"
 

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

While I largely agree - there are things that we can know without having had to directly experience them. This can either be by aggregating information from those who do have direct experience, or from scientific measurement, and other inductive and deductive reasoning methods.
 
For instance, I do not have to have heard a specific OTL tube amplifier, in order to suggest that because it is an OTL tube amplifier, and the vast majority of them have relatively high output impedance and lower current output - especially within a given price point, that it might not be well suited to a low sensitivity, low impedance headphone.
 
Having heard a specific headphone before giving a thumbs up or thumbs down is great, but in at many cases, is not always strictly necessary to giving accurate information about that product. And more to the point, is not a guarantee that the person who does have experience with it, is necessarily any good at knowing what they are hearing and why and in any position to give useful information either. 

 
I don't really agree.  In my opinion, nothing should be recommended without hearing it first.  Aggregated information is often crap.  Not only does the source of the aggregation often get lost over multiple iterations, each iteration strays a little from the source and therefore becomes less useful.  In a community of thousands of people, there is likely to be someone with first hand knowledge, so why not just keep your mouth shut and wait for that person to speak up?
 
I don't know that I agree with having to own something before discussing it, but you should have at least heard it.  I'm a little biased on this point, because I go to a lot of head-fi meets, and feel that listening and making comparisons at meets has improved my knowledge of various headphones.  In the very least, it has allowed me to choose purchases that have lead to a greater hit-miss ratio.
 
As far as the objectivist viewpoint, the scientific method goes something like this.
 
1. Develop a theory
2. Test that theory through measurements and observations
3. Make adjustments to the theory and repeat steps 1 and 2 until a consensus can be found.
 
It seems that around here, the majority of objectivists stop at Step 1.  Which is not terribly useful.
 
So, in short, Don't recommend gear you haven't heard.  (That's aimed at the entire community, not just you in particular.)

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

 
I don't really agree.  In my opinion, nothing should be recommended without hearing it first.  Aggregated information is often crap.  Not only does the source of the aggregation often get lost over multiple iterations, each iteration strays a little from the source and therefore becomes less useful.  In a community of thousands of people, there is likely to be someone with first hand knowledge, so why not just keep your mouth shut and wait for that person to speak up?

I can dig it. And if not for the fact that our ears and listening experiences can be so flawed and biased, I would be right there with you. 
 
Aggregated information *can* be crap. But it can also serve to average out information into a more accurate picture than individual experiences. E.g. if 10 people say something was fine, 5 people say something was great, and 5 people say something was crap. But the 5 crap people are really vocal and active about that view... it can skew the results unless you average the experiences. 
 
We can wait for all those people to chime in... or someone who has been around for a few years, and seen the same questions answered over and over, can average and relate those responses without much danger, I think, of providing crap. 
 
--
 
And one minor quibble, the objectivist does (or should) try to work with actual data, not just a theory about it. 

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

I can dig it. And if not for the fact that our ears and listening experiences can be so flawed and biased, I would be right there with you. 
 
Aggregated information *can* be crap. But it can also serve to average out information into a more accurate picture than individual experiences. E.g. if 10 people say something was fine, 5 people say something was great, and 5 people say something was crap. But the 5 crap people are really vocal and active about that view... it can skew the results unless you average the experiences. 

I see your point.  But what many of us are going for here is personal enjoyment, and for that, an aggregated average may be less accurate than the listening experience of someone with similar tastes.  For example, there are sharply divided viewpoints on Grado headphones, and an aggregated average may show certain negative characteristics.  But on the other hand, I have owned a pair of SR225s for 2 years, and they are my most listened to and possibly most enjoyed headphones.  Someone with similar tastes to mine might gain more value from that first hand account than the aggregated average.
 
But again, I can see both sides.
 

 

[liamstrain]

Both approaches have value.
 
And I agree with you, I love my 225.

 

[poikkeus]

My big gripe with Head-Fi members is that, well, they gripe so much.
 
(Then again, this is a forum...)

 

[Magick Man]

Recently I saw a recommendation of CAL!s for a basshead who wants the best Dubstep cans for <$100. Now, I like the Denon D1001s, listened to them for a good amount of time, but wouldn't recommend them in that situation. Makes me think that the person making the recommendation has never listened to them at all. Likely the person posing the question would have been disappointed.

Personally, I'd steer them to the Sony XB500s, and said that via PM to the guy who is shopping.