Exactly. It is an expectation vs reality thing. You get to hear some or gamble on the many.
Headphone suitability is somewhat more of a personal 'fit' than other audio gear. Very hard to pin-down.
Last edited:
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Current InnerFidelity is not InnerFidelity at all
- Thread starter yummy
- Start date
Exactly. It is an expectation vs reality thing. You get to hear some or gamble on the many.
Headphone suitability is somewhat more of a personal 'fit' than other audio gear. Very hard to pin-down.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Rtings is making an attempt and rates headphones based on test data only. They also do it per 'application' (portable, home, gaming, jogging, studio etc.)
A disadvantage of this method (IMO) is that some aspects aren't easily thrown into numbers and looking at the ratings there is little difference in 'the best' and headphones measuring slightly worse but sounding much worse. The latter is subjective and will be hard to put in numbers, as is personal preference.
I see little attempts to creating a real standard.
Even with such a standard personal preference and taste as well as comfort this may seem to have little chance of correlating well.
Nothing as personal as headphones....
Let's drag Tyll out of his camper and give us much needed guidance again...
Last edited:
I miss having an erection for the entire day. Do you need pictures for proof?
It has not only disadvantages, it is entirely misguided. Listening to headphones should be the final judgement for it's quality. Measurement curves are especially worthless if you have no idea how to interpret them, eg. comparing closed headphone FR graphs with open ones or trying to put properties like "spacial imaging" into measurement procedures that have little to do with it.
In the end, I am happy about every database of headphone measurements, but in the case of rtings the evaluation of headphone performance is worthless.
I think that's a little harsh. There are plenty of elements in his methodology that I disagree with but I think he's got a few new ideas which are pretty good.
It is harsh but necessary criticism. I rather have them introduce listening tests into their portfolio now than having to read that the HD 820 is comparable in performance to the ATH M50x because the FR looks similar.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
They rate the M50X = 7.9 and the HD820 = 7.7 but they never wrote the M50X is 'better'.
"The Sennheiser HD 820 are a slightly better closed back critical listening headphone than the Audio-Technica ATH-M50X but not by much considering their price difference. The HD 820 have a much better and more premium build quality. They also have more spacious and well-padded earcups that are breathable enough to wear for much longer than the M50x. They come with more high-end cables and accessories and would be the superior headset if their sound quality was a bit more consistent. Here the ATH-M50x have the advantage. They have a slightly more balanced mid-range and a more pronounced bass but do not have the soundstage o of the Sennheisers. The Audio-Technica are also a bit lighter and easier to use with mobile devices."
So better and not better at the same time.
I heard and measured both and think the HD820 is way better (but not perfect) than the M50X.
What would Tyll have said about the final production model (which differs from the proto's he heard/measured) and about his beloved ATH-M50 ?
"The Sennheiser HD 820 are a slightly better closed back critical listening headphone than the Audio-Technica ATH-M50X but not by much considering their price difference. The HD 820 have a much better and more premium build quality. They also have more spacious and well-padded earcups that are breathable enough to wear for much longer than the M50x. They come with more high-end cables and accessories and would be the superior headset if their sound quality was a bit more consistent. Here the ATH-M50x have the advantage. They have a slightly more balanced mid-range and a more pronounced bass but do not have the soundstage o of the Sennheisers. The Audio-Technica are also a bit lighter and easier to use with mobile devices."
So better and not better at the same time.
I heard and measured both and think the HD820 is way better (but not perfect) than the M50X.
What would Tyll have said about the final production model (which differs from the proto's he heard/measured) and about his beloved ATH-M50 ?
Last edited:
This definitely requires supporting evidence or maybe best to retract such claims..
Ouch, that sounds painful.......
I'm happy if we stick to 'even the wife can tell the difference' style posts for these claims.
One of the things I respected about Tyll was that he didn't just review and offer opinions based on an assumption that more expensive = better. In fact at times he was highly critical of many flagship/statement headphones and whether or not I agreed with his views I did have a lot of time for him on that point. Too many hi-fi reviewers basically just seem to scratch the back of high end manufacturers with lazy reviews that start off from an assumption that if something costs $$$$$$$$$$$'s then it must be terrific. I remember his review of the Audio Technica MSR7, an excellent headphone which won't break the bank, he was decent enough to say that while the sound was a touch bright for his tastes the design was very well executed and an excellent product.
I don't buy the link between price and hi-fi performance. There are high end items that are superbly engineered, manufactured to remarkable standards and which perform wonderfully, unfortunately a lot of high end stuff in no way merits its price in terms of either design, build quality or performance. Headphones are no exception, I've listened to a few statement headphones, some were superb but even the good ones weren't so much better than good mid-fi models that you could say their performance was justified by cost if you looed at them dispassionately. And whilst designs like the Oppo PM-1 were beautifully made and really did feel very special, others weren't. I have a pair of Sony MDR-Z7's, they may not be the best headphones in the world (although I actually like them a lot) their build quality shames many headphones which cost an awful lot more. They certainly shame my T5P's despite their SRP being something like 50% of the Beyerdynamic's.
So I really see nothing silly about comparing much cheaper headphones to flagship statement models and saying that the difference isn't what you might expect from the price difference.
I don't buy the link between price and hi-fi performance. There are high end items that are superbly engineered, manufactured to remarkable standards and which perform wonderfully, unfortunately a lot of high end stuff in no way merits its price in terms of either design, build quality or performance. Headphones are no exception, I've listened to a few statement headphones, some were superb but even the good ones weren't so much better than good mid-fi models that you could say their performance was justified by cost if you looed at them dispassionately. And whilst designs like the Oppo PM-1 were beautifully made and really did feel very special, others weren't. I have a pair of Sony MDR-Z7's, they may not be the best headphones in the world (although I actually like them a lot) their build quality shames many headphones which cost an awful lot more. They certainly shame my T5P's despite their SRP being something like 50% of the Beyerdynamic's.
So I really see nothing silly about comparing much cheaper headphones to flagship statement models and saying that the difference isn't what you might expect from the price difference.
Don Hills
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Of course you feel better. Your mrs doesn't starch them like your mum did.
