To Mods: Feel free to remove this OT posts or move em, this is already enough thread crapping I guess, sorry!
...it is very well known that HD600 has better sound quality through objective testing.
If you're new to high-end headphones, I suggest you read this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/634201/battle-of-the-flagships-58-headphones-compared-update-audeze-lcd-2-revision-2-6-4-13
No, I'm not new to high-end headphones, I simply think the quality gain (
TO ME) is small compared to headphones that cost 1/2 or even 1/4!
And regarding objective testing, it's only objective if you either do:
#1 Blind ABX testing (which doesn't really work for headphones) with a very large group of people
-> Where you get a averaged result which can still be very different from the one of a individual... like you or me
Example:
A ABX blind test might show that vanilla ice cream tastes better than, lets say, garlic/onion ice cream, as 99% of the people voted so.
Still, that doesn't turn the opinion of people who dislike vanilla and love garlic/onion ice cream untrue... See?
#2 Measurements (via spectrum analyzers etc.)
-> Which will just tell you how the representation of the signal (output) differs from the input, not if it sounds better or worse to a human (subjective...)
-> You can't proof or refute subjective matters with objective tests without having a full understanding which conditions lead to the subjective finding of a individual
In case you try to flank #2 by saying that the objective of a headphone is to reproduce the signal as good as possible (valid point), and that's what makes a headphone good:
-> If there was a magical headphone which makes bad recordings, no matter how bad, sound good, it would be a bad headphone by that definition?
-> Wouldn't it score better in a blind ABX test? Conflicting...
-> If you'd know that the recoding is supposed to be bad, would you give the less good sounding can a vote-up because it meets your "more accurate" demand?
-> If so, it's just because of your POV and bias (you like accurate cans so you vote bad sounding ones up in this case)
-> See POV is important here?
-> But POV is individual...
In case you want to flank this example by saying "Magical headphones don't exist, that's bull****" or something:
-> This is a thought experiment to show logic conflicts that may arise, existence of said headphone doesn't matter here
-> One could call thought experiments and time paradoxes (ie. by Einstein) bull**** as well as time machines and spaceships with light-speed don't exist either
_______________________________________________________________________
Now, as you made me continue anyway:>> Do you seriously think DT880's are low-end or do you just hate Beyers?
> They are, and I don't hate them. They're just not as good as similar things like Sennheiser HD600.
Says who? You? Someone else? Who cares? To me it's the opposite, there is nothing you can do about it!
>> Do you also think low-end equals low-fi?
> No.
Thumbs up on that!
>> It's a pretty subjective matter anyway, isn't it?
> Nope. Headphones are transducers. They turn a digital signal into an analogue pressure. The output can be measured and compared to the input.
Which wont tell you much about the impression it leaves on a individual, because he/she could prefeer a altered representation over a exact duplication!
>> But what if the less flat FR actually compensates to some extend for your ears FR (which if different from person to person).."
> Most people's ears are pretty similar. I don't think they'd have a noticeable effect on FR. Wax buildup much more so.
As you seem to be very sure of this... How high is the variation? What's your source?
Tried a test with a small group of people? What are your findings (in numbers)?
>> ..or simply better matches your taste?
> I like music to sound the way it was mixed. I'm sure there are some people who like lots of muddy thumping, but they would be buying Beats by Dr.Dre.
Also hate for Beats?
No biggie, I dont like em either...
But your statement shows what I was tying to say!
YOU like music the way it was mixed, OTHERS like bloated bass.
I like to switch headphones with different characteristics (from neutral to very non neutral) also because most mixing/processing isn't 100% to my liking to begin with!
>> Also, what if the alteration that gets applied to a waveform actually results in a better perceived sound?
> Then they recorded the source badly.
Define "badly" please!
Don't forget that the terms "good" and "bad" can be depend on the POV (objective measurements, subjective impressions -> Re: Opinions... Taste...)
>> For example, a leading overshoot and a fast roll-off may be a "less precise reproduction of the source" but could be perceived as sharper/more precise/punchier.
> That doesn't happen. It's always the other way around. Usually this perceived effect comes from too much treble.
How do you know it doesn't? The only way would be doing a study on this matter with every human on this planet participating!
Or do you mean it doesn't happen to you? That doesn't mean it doesn't happen to everyone!
Or do you mean it doesn't happen in headphones? Because it does...
It's a good example of things that can be proven objectively (ie. with a spectrum analyzer) as there is no "POV" component here
>> I can't speak of the Stax (never had the chance to try em) but to me most "high-end" headphones (HD800, AH-D7000, etc.) are a ripoff! Not saying they are bad, no, but you pay multiple times more for minimal gain in sound quality imo.
> It's far from minimal, but there definitely is diminishing returns.
TO ME IT IS MINIMAL!
That's MY impression and MY opinion, even if yours is different it doesn't negate mine!!!
> HD600 and HD650 are the best mid-range headphones compared to those of similar cost (yes, Beyerdynamics and Denon included).
Again, that's a opinion and mine is different...
If I'd prefer HD600's I'd use em instead of what I use now, heh?
Also: A rule from a A/V forum I was active back then -> There is no best!
>> Now you might ask, why spending that much on a DAC and amplifier then? It's simple... While switching headphones to get "different ways of reproduction" is simple and affordable and (to me) even fun, switching source components is not, I think. So, I'd rather go for solid and neutral "keepers" for the source components and switch headphones depending on mood and music. But, that's just my personal preference and point of view!
>Diminishing returns applies much more to amplifiers and especially DACs than headphones. Any advantage a $900 DAC has over a well made $50 DAC shouldn't be perceivable by any human.
Actually I have the same opinion here! :)
The problem is that there aren't many (if any) "well made" DAC's for $50, especially not ones that also including a well made amplifier.
Can you show me a good (in your opinion) DAC with a decent headphone amp, async USB, optical input, chinch and XLR output, if possible black/silver, for $50? If not, for $100?
>> If a single high-end headphone works out better for you, that's fine as well... In the end, the most important thing is that we enjoy the experience, that we enjoy the music, eh? :)
> You'd enjoy it more with better headphones :P
How do you know? Because #1 You are not me, and #2 I used headphones you consider "better" and did NOT enjoy em more :P
