As an aside, when I lost my Xonar, I figured I'd experiment with my P6T's onboard sound. I found that, using WASAPI in Win7, I can get bitperfect easily from Foobar. I can go to multichannel analog for gaming, and then pop over to the optical connection for music. Gaming doesn't particularly need fidelity, so the onboard DACs are largely irrelevant to me.... and by giving me bitperfect to the receiver, I can use its high quality DACs for music, when I'm actually paying attention.
I think I may simply not replace the Xonar. I haven't used motherboard sound in ages, but this Realtek setup works nicely.
Rise!
Just bought a pair of Sennheiser HD428's and they are my new favorite headphone. They are small, circumaural, closed back headphones, with a short (5ft) cord. They sound fantastic with music and they have a great soundstage, which makes them a good gaming headphone. They pair nicely with the different virtual surround processors like CMSS, SRS, and Dolby Headphone, but I find they perform very well without any virtual surround processing. They can be difficult to drive, but not to the extent that you need an amp. They do sound better when amped, but the benefit is minimal. If anyone is looking for some really great circumaural, but portable, headphones for music and gaming, these cans will blow you away. Its bigger brothers the HD438 and HD448 should perform similarly. Sennheiser hit a home run with this new line. I have read a lot of good reviews of the HD448 in particular.
Rise!
Just bought a pair of Sennheiser HD428's and they are my new favorite headphone. They are small, circumaural, closed back headphones, with a short (5ft) cord. They sound fantastic with music and they have a great soundstage, which makes them a good gaming headphone. They pair nicely with the different virtual surround processors like CMSS, SRS, and Dolby Headphone, but I find they perform very well without any virtual surround processing. They can be difficult to drive, but not to the extent that you need an amp. They do sound better when amped, but the benefit is minimal. If anyone is looking for some really great circumaural, but portable, headphones for music and gaming, these cans will blow you away. Its bigger brothers the HD438 and HD448 should perform similarly. Sennheiser hit a home run with this new line. I have read a lot of good reviews of the HD448 in particular.
I'm going to be tempted to pick up the 448's. I've been using in-ear headphones and I'm starting to feel they are not good for my ears. This is mostly because I will use them on the bus (3.5 hours total per day) every weekday. They also just get plain uncomfortable for using that long.
I'm a cheapy so I'm waiting on my Klipsch S2m's to arrive. $26 shipped from Amazon and will be replacing my Sennheiser CX400's, who have been losing life since I've started listening to more podcasts.
Died in a podcasting accident...
We need to get you on truly good headphones for a few weeks, heavyfeul, to give you a better reference point for comparison. As is, it's hard to tell if they're genuinely good, or just better than what you had before. 
Sennheiser typically doesn't make crap, but their higher-end stuff is just amazing. I could easily see calling the Sennheiser PC350s 'good headphones', for instance, as they're fairly competent, but they're quite congested compared to my 600s. Without an A/B comparison on the 6s, I'd be reasonably impressed, but their weaknesses are much more apparent with a truly good set of cans on the other ear. They lose a lot of air and space... the treble's weak, and the midrange feels compressed somehow, like it's missing something. That would be a lot harder to detect without either a bunch of hours on a better set, or the better set right there to compare with.
I'm suspicious that I may keep the 600s until they physically wear out. I have trouble imagining that headphones could do very much better.
We need to get you on truly good headphones for a few weeks, heavyfeul, to give you a better reference point for comparison. As is, it's hard to tell if they're genuinely good, or just better than what you had before. :)
I'm of the mind that after about $150, the price to performance ratio drops significantly. Sure, a $400 pair of headphone and a comparable amp running from a high end player with balanced cables in a quiet sound proof room will sound amazing. However, I don't know anyone who listen to music like that.
My current collection, since you asked.
ATH-AD700
HD555
HD485
HD428
PX100
Porta Pro
DT235
KSC75's
AX720
X41
No "audiophile" headphones to be seen, I'm afraid. I suppose that means the HD428's are not very good headphones. I retract my positive review. 
I'm of the mind that after about $150, the price to performance ratio drops significantly.
Have you actually listened to anything in that $200 to $300 range? If not then I can see why you might think this. But then... you have a set of Trittons you defend on your list that to me sounded like friggin beer cans with some $1 drives shoved into them, so I don't think we're ever going to see quite eye to eye on this.
Malor, I don't know how much you've looked into Sennheiser's new lineup, but the 448's are one of the best sets they've ever made as far as pure value for your dollar. They're at $99 pricing them right alongside the HD 280 Pro's, but the sound is actually a good deal better. Not as much isolation, but very nice sound for that kind of money. I'd say they're a bit better than the HD-555's that were so popular for so long, and those are still a few dollars more than the 448's.
I don't have any experience with the 428's so I can't speak to how they perform, but reviews tend to lean pretty heavily toward that Sennheiser 400 series whenever you talk that $50-$100 range now. The other major competitor up near the 448's is the AudioTechnica AD700 (or A700's if you want the sealed version instead of open back) but while those sound very clean and do have an excellent soundstage, they're also fairly weak on the low end relative to the equally priced Sennheiser offerings. Very clean and clear, but nothing exceptional. The Sennheisers in that price range typically sound a little better.
On another note, I still think the best thing I've done was looking at Head-Fi's for sale forums and buying my pair of DT-770's used for $140. They were in perfect shape when they arrived. Looked like they'd never even been worn. They were still $250 everywhere at the time, so $110 off a barely used pair of headphones was pretty sweet considering how often I use them.
Well, they might be fine. I'm not saying they aren't -- I haven't heard them. I am saying that you're a frequent poster about headphones, and seem to have strong opinions, and I'd like to get you some experience with genuinely good ones for awhile, so you have a solid point of comparison. Once you know what the music SHOULD sound like, you'll be better able to judge quality.
I'm not in a spot where I can do it right now, but perhaps in a month or so I can lend you my 600s for awhile.
You seem to have this weird thing going on where you keep buying up a little, and being all impressed by the sound, but then simultaneously being dismissive of people who tell you that if you buy specific $300-$400 headphones, that's the sweet spot. Further improvements are very expensive and relatively minor, but headphones make big strides over the first three hundred bucks or so.
Spending more money, however, is no guarantee of performance. You can buy expensive crap, and sometimes you can get really good sound for not very much money, if the audio engineers were clever enough. There are occasional great bargains in headphones and speakers. Thin_J's recent exploration of bookshelves is an example -- he ended up with excellent sound on the cheap, simply by taking the time to truly shop.
Since you seem to more or less do the same thing, getting you "calibrated", as it were, would let us map your experience to user expectations better.
...Once you know what the music SHOULD sound like, you'll be better able to judge quality...
Can you show me how art should look when you're done? Take it easy Obi-Wan.
Malor wrote:...Once you know what the music SHOULD sound like, you'll be better able to judge quality...
Can you show me how art should look when you're done? Take it easy Obi-Wan.
He sort of has a point, although I totally get where the sarcasm is coming from
But technically... Music should sound like the mixer/artist intended for it to sound when they recorded it, no? You don't get that from a fairly large percentage of audio gear. Whole instruments and a lot of fine detail can just disappear when a song is played through a lot of speakers, but can be crystal clear through others. Headphones aren't any different.
If you want to compare how music should sound to how art should look fine, but you can't do that without applying the same problem to both things. Listening to music through a lot of more common audio gear is sort of like looking at a famous painting through a color filter. You might think it looks great, but it's absolutely not how that piece of art is supposed to look. If you've never seen the painting without that filter you've never actually seen what it's supposed to look like.
But that's what a lot of cheaper audio stuff is doing. It's changing the sound.
By that logic then we should only listen to music on high end studio equipment.
I get what your saying and don't totally disagree with it, but sometimes good enough is just that- good enough. That extra few hundred bucks could go towards much more meaningful things.
By that logic then we should only listen to music on high end studio equipment.
I get what your saying and don't totally disagree with it, but sometimes good enough is just that- good enough. That extra few hundred bucks could go towards much more meaningful things.
He brought art into the equation. Not me.
And no, it doesn't take high end studio equipment to hear music as it was recorded, but you're welcome to keep believing that if it makes you happy.
But technically... Music should sound like the mixer/artist intended for it to sound when they recorded it, no?
Maybe. Personally, I think I agree. However, look at how many hi-fi companies (yes, I use the archaic term) sell graphic equalizers. How many music players or sound card config programs come with equalizers? If music should sound like the engineer intended, we wouldn't have those controls.
Also, in other kinds of art, artist intent theory is dead. Once the art or work is created, it is up to the audience to make what they will of it. For example, Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451 as a screed against the banality of television, but the audience decided it was a book about the evils of censorship. Bradbury doesn't get to decide what his book is about and the sound engineer doesn't get to decide what the song should sound like.
That said, anyone who is seriously interested in listening would be a fool to ignore what the engineer was shooting for. Of course, with a lot of popular music, the engineers are shooting to sound good in car audio systems or in ipod headsets, neither are ideal acoustic environments.
And no, it doesn't take high end studio equipment to hear music as it was recorded, but you're welcome to keep believing that if it makes you happy.
As someone who's lived off $20-$40 headphones for years, with everything from an iPod Nano to an iPhone to a Motorola Droid, here's my honest questions:
What are some of the affordable, recommended equipment options to listen with? (device, headphones)
Is a dedicated media device a better option that a smartphone when it comes to audio output? (cuz I'm considering it)
Also note, I'm clueless as how to even bother working with equalizers. I know what some of the settings do and how it changes sound, but why (and is it) necessary?
What are some of the affordable, recommended equipment options to listen with? (device, headphones)
Is a dedicated media device a better option that a smartphone when it comes to audio output? (cuz I'm considering it)Also note, I'm clueless as how to even bother working with equalizers. I know what some of the settings do and how it changes sound, but why (and is it) necessary?
There are more expert opinions regarding specific equipment here, so I will leave that question to them to answer.
As for sound quality between dedicated devices and smartphones, it depends. A good smartphone can be better than a cheap MP3 player, you need to compare specifics. I would lean towards a dedicated device myself, I'm not a fan of convergence with my devices.
The EQ exists for a few reasons. One is to adjust the sound to one's taste. Like bass? Boost it. But it's main purpose is to make the music sound more as intended. Speakers, headphones and even the room you listen to music in effect the sound. The room shape, and stuff in it, can boost and attenuate specific frequencies and the EQ can be used to counter that.
I watched a sound professional set up an EQ once. It was fascinating. He put in a CD of white noise and had a gadget that analysed the sound in the room to help him set the EQ.
Most people misuse it though, so they shouldn't even bother.
Maybe. Personally, I think I agree. However, look at how many hi-fi companies (yes, I use the archaic term) sell graphic equalizers. How many music players or sound card config programs come with equalizers? If music should sound like the engineer intended, we wouldn't have those controls.
The true purpose of an EQ is to compensate for speaker and room coloration though. Ideally you'd use a pink noise generator and an RTA to calibrate your system.
Oso wrote:Maybe. Personally, I think I agree. However, look at how many hi-fi companies (yes, I use the archaic term) sell graphic equalizers. How many music players or sound card config programs come with equalizers? If music should sound like the engineer intended, we wouldn't have those controls.
The true purpose of an EQ is to compensate for speaker and room coloration though. Ideally you'd use a pink noise generator and an RTA to calibrate your system.
Truth!
When most people get their hands on an EQ function the only thing they do is murder their music.
As someone who's lived off $20-$40 headphones for years, with everything from an iPod Nano to an iPhone to a Motorola Droid, here's my honest questions:
What are some of the affordable, recommended equipment options to listen with? (device, headphones)
Is a dedicated media device a better option that a smartphone when it comes to audio output? (cuz I'm considering it)
I can't comment on smartphones. I have no idea if quality has gone up or down or whatever since I last read anything about them. I don't use them, at all, so I don't pay much attention. If I had to guess I would say the audio outputs are very likely average and cheap almost across the board. That may be completely incorrect. I don't know.
As far as a listening device, that's much more about what interface you like and whatever else than it is about audio output. For instance, the ZuneHD sounds pretty great if you just disable the EQ stuff. But it's only marginally better than the iPod if you disable the EQ on that, so the choice becomes more about which interface and online store you prefer.
And for headphones, well... you have to set a price range and decide what you want out of them to really get a solid answer. If you just hop on Head-FI and say "I want good headphones, what do I buy?" You'll get about a thousand conflicting answers, and almost none of them will be wrong. Give the bunch here a better idea what you want out of whatever you buy and you'll get much better answers.
I think what's a little odd to some of us about Heaveyful's resistance to a more expensive pair of headphones (at least to me, not really speaking for anybody else here) is that he's already spent twice the cost of a nice pair on a long list of low to mid-range sets. Bouncing from one $100 set to another tends not to bring a whole lot of change. Each manufacturer does tend to have a bit of a signature to their sound, so there's that, but even with that there's only so much difference. Instead of buying 6 $50 pairs of headphones just buy one $200 pair, buy a nice little Amp/DAC to go with it, and be done with the whole thing.
If a person has say the Senn 448's and likes them, and doesn't want to or isn't going to spend anymore, that's fine! Great. They're good headphones. They put out very good sound for the price.
It's when someone buys four or five different $50-$100 sets but then poo-poos the idea of buying a $300 pair that I start to get confused.
A good quality cheap PMP can be found with the Sansa Clip, Clip+, and I assume FuZe (and soon to come Fuse+). The DAC seems quite good according to a lot of sites.
Clips are tiny, too. I love them so much that I have 3
They put out very good sound for the price.
Thank you for this line. I tried to keep out of the discussion for as long as I could; it just seems that the audiophiles in the group tend to come off as if you didn't buy the $600 headphones you are listening to utter crap.
I'm sorry if I come off as an @$$ on this topic. I have no real ability to interject my opinions on speaker quality, god knows I have effed up a large range in my hearing working around printing presses and bowling equipment with no protection or shooting without earmuffs.
I have bought two pairs of headphones based off heaviefeul's recommendations (Turtle Beach X41's and Beyerdynamic MMX 2's). I love them both and for they fit the price range I was willing to spend perfectly. I guess if I ever want to step up to something better and worth a months rent, I will call ThinJ and Malor as they do seem to know their stuff. Of course this would also probably require me to start listening to "good" music.
I will now stop pissing in your guys' Cheerios and leave the discussion.
See, the thing is, neither Thin_J nor I are really audiophiles. I'm presuming a bit by putting words into his mouth here, but I think what we're both looking for is competence, not stunning revelations of beauty or some bullshit like that. Most computer speakers are really bad, and if you learned to listen to music on computers, you've probably gotten a butchered education.
You don't have to spend a ton of money to get perfectly good reproduction. Most actual audio gear does an okay job, even the cheap stuff. But computer speakers in general, and Logitech speakers in particular, tend to be just awful, awful, awful, to the point of being actively unlistenable when you've spent any time with competent gear.
You get really excellent bang-per-buck in headphones, and they improve quickly up to about $300. A good $300ish pair will get you almost all the way there... typically 90-95% as good at a $3,000 pair. Once you've got that and a decent DAC, you're pretty much set forever.... it becomes a solved problem. There's little reason to keep chasing incremental improvements after that. The cost rapidly goes into the stratosphere, and it's quite common for the REAL return on investment to be negative. A lot of audio becomes hype and bullshit, actually offering WORSE sound than cheaper alternatives. There's a lot of snobbery and elitism and e-peen wavery in the audio world, and that whole scene is best avoided.
But, lemme tell ya, get a good set of cans and a decent source, and spend a couple of months with it. Once you've done that, you'll understand what we're talking about. It has nothing to do with elitism -- it's just solving the problem right, calibrating your ears to one of the good solutions, and then being able to hear and buy the occasional screaming deals in audio gear. You truly don't have to spend a lot of money once you've trained yourself on what competent sound reproduction should be like. Until you do that, though, it's easy to get taken for a ride by hucksters. (see: Bose.)
Once you have real exposure to a good solution, you may find that you don't mind "lesser" reproduction. If that's the case, just sell your headphones off and trade down, and relax knowing that you'll never feel the need to spend very much on speakers or on audio in general.
Hardly anyone takes the time to actually educate themselves, and most of the audio industry thrives on that. Spending a lot of money doesn't necessary mean a damn thing, and a company providing superior products at a reasonable price can easily go under, because their customers don't actually know what superior products even are.
Most of the audio industry, in other words, is purely about sizzle, not the steak. Convince people they're buying something fantastic and they'll believe it, even if you're selling them crap in a box. (see: Bose).
Spend the time to learn what's going on, and you can shop for actual steak, not just the promise of it. And it's not like it's difficult to learn -- just get a solid set of cans, spend a couple/three months with them, and voila, you've got enough basic knowledge to be able to buy audio gear reasonably well.
And you may already be done shopping for music gear... you have to spend a crapload of money on speakers to get the same kind of quality offered by good headphones. I've seen the rule of thumb as being 10:1.... to duplicate $300 headphones, you'll probably need a $3000 stereo.
Ultimately, we're trying to save you money. Buying over and over and over again, moving up gradually and being all amazed at each incremental improvement, is expensive as hell. It's wasteful. Just do it right the first time, and you don't have to do it again.
If you disagree with someone's opinion in regards to a pair of headphones, then please leave a review. All I said was that the HD428 (and likely the 400 line in general) are great sounding versatile headphones. If you know of a $55 pair of headphones that are comparable, then sound off. Leave your impressions so other people can benefit from your experience. If you think that my collection disqualifies me from having a valid opinion in regards to headphones, that is fine, but it is completely unrelated to the question of whether the HD428 are a good pair of headphones or not. Are they as good as a pair of HD600's? Of course not, but who cares?
Each headphone has it's own unique sound and some of us like the different experience provided by each. Sitting at home listening to music in a quiet room with my ATH-AD700s plugged into a dedicated headphone amp is a wonderful experience. But, so is listening to my iPod with the HD428s as I walk to lunch. Just because you love a perfectly cooked Filet Mignon doesn't mean you can't also enjoy a juicy cheeseburger from your favorite diner as well.
If we were to break the discussion down to in-ear/ear buds, how do some of the different price ranges hold up when traveling, storing, etc come into play?
If you think that my collection disqualifies me from having a valid opinion in regards to headphones, that is fine, but it is completely unrelated to the question of whether the HD428 are a good pair of headphones or not.
You can have an opinion all you like, but without knowing what good sound is, it doesn't actually mean anything. Once you've spent enough time with really good sound, once you know what the benchmark is, you can give a much better idea of whether a given set of headphones are actually a good buy or not.
Without benchmark experience, in other words, we can't extract useful data from your opinion. Whether you love them or hate them is almost orthogonal to their actual quality. There are people out there who insist, for instance, that Logitech speakers are good -- I just went back and forth with a guy over on Ars who'd spent a ton of time and energy trying to make z680s do what they should have done out of the box, actually suspending them in midair to try to get the bass down to something approaching reasonable, and contain the nasty resonances. (they're horribly boomy and overdriven speakers.) He was very aggressive that they sounded great, but had absolutely no experience with anything that's actually good, and was completely unwilling to expand his horizons in any way, shape, or form.
His opinion about speakers isn't just worthless, in other words, it's actively misleading. But he uses very strong language, and I feel bad for anyone that gives his opinion any weight at all.
In other words, if you want to be actually useful in your reviews, if you want to be able to support a strong opinion, you need to know what things should sound like. If you don't do that, then you should qualify reviews of audio gear with the fact that you have no experience with the good stuff, and stick carefully with the language of uncertainty. Broad experience, by itself, is worth very little; you need good experience first. THEN breadth of sampling becomes interesting.
I'm into my 40s now, and my hearing isn't what it was. My opinion is less useful than it used to be. It'd be nice to get some younger ears trained up on these forums... I think Thin_J's about it at the moment.
If you think that my collection disqualifies me from having a valid opinion in regards to headphones, that is fine, but it is completely unrelated to the question of whether the HD428 are a good pair of headphones or not.You can have an opinion all you like, but without knowing what good sound is, it doesn't actually mean anything. Once you've spent enough time with really good sound, once you know what the benchmark is, you can give a much better idea of whether a given set of headphones are actually a good buy or not.
Without benchmark experience, in other words, we can't extract useful data from your opinion. Whether you love them or hate them is almost orthogonal to their actual quality. There are people out there who insist, for instance, that Logitech speakers are good -- I just went back and forth with a guy over on Ars who'd spent a ton of time and energy trying to make z680s do what they should have done out of the box, actually suspending them in midair to try to get the bass down to something approaching reasonable, and contain the nasty resonances. (they're horribly boomy and overdriven speakers.) He was very aggressive that they sounded great, but had absolutely no experience with anything that's actually good, and was completely unwilling to expand his horizons in any way, shape, or form.
His opinion about speakers isn't just worthless, in other words, it's actively misleading. But he uses very strong language, and I feel bad for anyone that gives his opinion any weight at all.
In other words, if you want to be actually useful in your reviews, if you want to be able to support a strong opinion, you need to know what things should sound like. If you don't do that, then you should qualify reviews of audio gear with the fact that you have no experience with the good stuff, and stick carefully with the language of uncertainty. Broad experience, by itself, is worth very little; you need good experience first. THEN breadth of sampling becomes interesting.
I'm into my 40s now, and my hearing isn't what it was. My opinion is less useful than it used to be. It'd be nice to get some younger ears trained up on these forums... I think Thin_J's about it at the moment.
I get it. You have made it abundantly clear on how you feel about my opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that I have one. Again, feel free to disregard or provide some form of substantive criticism, beyond your assumptions regarding my qualifications.
I think "good sound" is too subjective a thing to really have a discussion on who's right or wrong at this point.
My one Hangup with everything you've said Heavy is still this:
I'm of the mind that after about $150, the price to performance ratio drops significantly.
You say Price/Performance drops heavily after $150 but don't say what you've tried over that to give you that opinion. If you haven't tried anything else, then that judgment is pretty worthless, no?
I don't disagree with anything else you've said. Well, except your positive review of the Trittons 
Sound quality is one of those very subjective topics. I've never seen a review of anything that actually measures the sonic qualities of a set of headphones, it's always about the way they 'sound' the most you'll ever get is the specs from the manufacture. Also it's rare that someone runs double blind tests with the same source but multiple headphones.
I'm running an pair of AKG 702's on my desk at the moment, however I know I'm not getting all I can out of them because I'm not running them with a good amp, but until I do hook them up to a good amp I don't know for sure what kind of performance increase I'll get out of them because it's all hearsay and conjecture from other people. There hearing might not be as sharp as mine or vice versa.
I have noticed my hearing becoming more 'accurate' as I've gotten better headphones and worked my way up. I started with a pair of Sony headphones and I've gone through about 4 pairs of inear buds (Shure E2C, Shure SE115's which were disappointingly shitty after the E2C's, M-Audio IE-10's which are re-branded UE Triple.fi 10 Pro and a pair of UE MetroFi 170 which I'm using at home and on the go) and I use a crappy pair of Sennheiser HD 437 on my desktop when I'm gaming.
I've run the gamut of headphones and there is a noticeable increase in quality as I've moved up, but maybe that's because I've been looking for the increase and I've actively re-listened to things I know inside and out to see what the difference is or I've convinced myself it is performing better when there isn't much of an improvement, it's tough to say for sure because of how subjective it is.
I think "good sound" is too subjective a thing to really have a discussion on who's right or wrong at this point.
My one Hangup with everything you've said Heavy is still this:
I'm of the mind that after about $150, the price to performance ratio drops significantly.You say Price/Performance drops heavily after $150 but don't say what you've tried over that to give you that opinion. If you haven't tried anything else, then that judgment is pretty worthless, no?
Your right, but I have had the chance to listen to some high end models, I just rarely pull the the trigger and buy a pair. I did own a pair of Grado SR325s for a while, years back, but I sold them when I got the HD555s. That may sound weird, but I liked the HD555s a lot better.
Also, it is not like I haven't considered getting a pair of cans from the top shelf. I really love the HD600s (and the Sennheiser sound in general), but I cannot justify the expensive. If I could sit for hours at a time on a regular basis and do some meditative/critical listening in a quiet room, I might start putting pennies in the jar for a pair, but I rarely have the opportunity to do that type of listening.
Thankfully, just because I have heard the HD600s in all their glory does not mean that the other pairs of Sennheisers I own now sound like shit. They make great headphones in every price range. In fact, you have mentioned a few inexpensive great sounding headphones yourself, so obviously you still enjoy cheaper headphones even though you have some high end gear in your collection.
Malor, I don't know how much you've looked into Sennheiser's new lineup, but the 448's are one of the best sets they've ever made as far as pure value for your dollar. They're at $99 pricing them right alongside the HD 280 Pro's, but the sound is actually a good deal better. Not as much isolation, but very nice sound for that kind of money. I'd say they're a bit better than the HD-555's that were so popular for so long, and those are still a few dollars more than the 448's.
I don't have any experience with the 428's so I can't speak to how they perform, but reviews tend to lean pretty heavily toward that Sennheiser 400 series whenever you talk that $50-$100 range now. The other major competitor up near the 448's is the AudioTechnica AD700 (or A700's if you want the sealed version instead of open back) but while those sound very clean and do have an excellent soundstage, they're also fairly weak on the low end relative to the equally priced Sennheiser offerings. Very clean and clear, but nothing exceptional. The Sennheisers in that price range typically sound a little better.
On another note, I still think the best thing I've done was looking at Head-Fi's for sale forums and buying my pair of DT-770's used for $140. They were in perfect shape when they arrived. Looked like they'd never even been worn. They were still $250 everywhere at the time, so $110 off a barely used pair of headphones was pretty sweet considering how often I use them.
EDIT: What is great about the new 400 line, as well, is that they are portable friendly. The HD555 is not easy to tote around (10 foot cord and beefy plug), but the new 400 line models have shorter cords and are not as large, but still circumaural.
Your right, but I have had the chance to listen to some high end models, I just rarely pull the the trigger and buy a pair. I did own a pair of Grado SR325s for a while, years back, but I sold them when I got the HD555s. That may sound weird, but I liked the HD555s a lot better.
That does not sound weird to me. In fact, I think Grado headphones are weird almost across the board. I found them to be a little harsh to listen to for more than few minutes at a time. They're very clear and the sound they put out is probably more detailed and clear than maybe anybody else in the business, but they sound very bright and harsh and I start getting annoyed with them even at lower volumes. When I heard them I found myself wishing very much for the more balanced and smooth output you get from a nice pair of Sennheisers.
Also, it is not like I haven't considered getting a pair of cans from the top shelf. I really love the HD600s (and the Sennheiser sound in general), but I cannot justify the expensive. If I could sit for hours at a time on a regular basis and do some meditative/critical listening in a quiet room, I might start putting pennies in the jar for a pair, but I rarely have the opportunity to do that type of listening.
Thankfully, just because I have heard the HD600s in all their glory does not mean that the other pairs of Sennheisers I own now sound like shit. They make great headphones in every price range. In fact, you have mentioned a few inexpensive great sounding headphones yourself, so obviously you still enjoy cheaper headphones even though you have some high end gear in your collection.
I dunno man, looking at all those pairs of lesser headphones I think you could have bought two pairs of HD600's by now
My most recent headphone related purchase was a Little Dot MKIII Tube amp, but it hasn't arrived yet. If I were a betting man, I'd say I'll guilt myself into buying a pair of 600's to go with the amp within a week or two.
I don't think I'd ever buy one, but I've heard a lot of people like tube amps -- they're noisier and have more distortion than solid state, but people actually like the sound of the distortion.
Going backward:
Thankfully, just because I have heard the HD600s in all their glory does not mean that the other pairs of Sennheisers I own now sound like sh*t. They make great headphones in every price range.
I've never once said that they don't. You can get pretty good headphones down cheaper, but ear training with the high-end stuff lets you characterize the strengths of different units... it lets you give people a more meaningful compare/contrast. But you have to spend real time with the good gear. Just a listen or two usually isn't enough.
Basically, it's just to let you pick out the crap, and tell people what's not worth bothering with. There's lots and lots of crap out there.
Part of the reason I'm somewhat dismissive of your opinion is because you hold so strongly to the idea that you don't need to spend more than $150 on headphones, that any more money is wasted, while simultaneously not having extended experience with the gear you deride. If you actually had a few hundred hours on something really good, like the HD600s or the BT775s, then I'd completely respect the opinion that buying cheaper is better. But as is, I don't think you can make that call.
I actually have something of a similar opinion, just a little higher up.... HD600s are the cans I've spent the most time with, and I tend to be of the opinion that you're just not going to do a lot better. You might find something with different coloring that fits your tastes better, but overall, something in that price range strikes me as very nearly a final solution for most people. It's hard for me to imagine how reproduction could be improved much from there. They are incredible pieces of gear.
It's entirely possible that someone who listens to $1K headphones could come in here and smack me around the exact same way, that I haven't spent the time to be really sure. But, at the same time, I don't think a high-end guy/gal like that would call the HD600s or BT775s bad headphones, by any stretch. And it is very common for folks who have listened to the high-end stuff to claim that the best bang-per-buck on accurate audio reproduction is in the $300-$400 range. Improvements come very quickly up to that point, but slow down very rapidly thereafter, and get very expensive.
I've run the gamut of headphones and there is a noticeable increase in quality as I've moved up, but maybe that's because I've been looking for the increase and I've actively re-listened to things I know inside and out to see what the difference is or I've convinced myself it is performing better when there isn't much of an improvement, it's tough to say for sure because of how subjective it is.
Hearing improvements that aren't actually there is the hallmark of audiophoolery, and it's very easy to do, no matter how much experience you have. You want something new to be better, and you paid a lot of money for it, so it's very easy to convince yourself it actually is. One way to check yourself is to use the new gear for a fairly extended period, and then switch back to older stuff and see if your opinion changes at all. If you start saying, "aha, these cans don't let me hear the background vocals" or "wow, the bass line is missing" or "hmm, something sounds wrong in those voices", then you probably do have a real improvement. It's usually be pretty obvious... if you really have to listen for the difference, it may not be there at all. Further, if you have to really work to tell the difference, then you just want the cheaper units.
True A/B/X tests are almost impossible on headphones, but you can sometimes put different sets on each ear, and then switch back and forth. That's why, for instance, I characterize the Senn PC350s as a bit congested in the midrange, and missing some high treble, but they're not annoying in routine use. They're not great, but I'd call them good, and they come with a mike, which is handy. Not worth the scratch at full retail, but Amazon sometimes has hellacious sales on Senns.
Pages