High end headphones?, Audiophile woo or just highly overhyped

[Blujackaal]

Going the LCDX thread I've always noticed this in the headphone world. £350 get you way more bangers than anything at £1000 & higher, Headphones with old drivers(DT 770, K702, etc) or okay mesurements(ER3XR/ER4XR) still can rival them & more so with EQ. I'm always skeptic when detail is what run too when they run out of steam, Since 2 on twitter did this to point on me muting them for a week.

People still get sore the AKG 702 can sill come 95% close to the HD800 for soundstage.

 

[Bob-23]

Most of that stuff is completely overpriced, not to mention the ridiculous, astronomic prices for simple (headphone) cables. LOL. Very profitable business.

 

[Morla]

Yeah.. find me a sony pentaconn to 2x3 pin XLR :-(

 

[majingotan]

Going the LCDX thread I've always noticed this in the headphone world. £350 get you way more bangers than anything at £1000 & higher, Headphones with old drivers(DT 770, K702, etc) or okay mesurements(ER3XR/ER4XR) still can rival them & more so with EQ. I'm always skeptic when detail is what run too when they run out of steam, Since 2 on twitter did this to point on me muting them for a week.

People still get sore the AKG 702 can sill come 95% close to the HD800 for soundstage.

All of that can be summarized to diminishing returns. It's more of a status symbol and elitism once you past diminishing returns, and unfortunately, many new hobbyists are being suckered to buying way past diminishing returns by these high end headphone elitists by virtue signaling "escaping mid-fi purgatory"

 

[Blujackaal]

All of that can be summarized to diminishing returns. It's more of a status symbol and elitism once you past diminishing returns, and unfortunately, many new hobbyists are being suckered to buying way past diminishing returns by these high end headphone elitists by virtue signaling "escaping mid-fi purgatory"

Yep i can't stand the hounding new posters get like that, But it refreshing when they ignore them as trolls. I got that a few times when i said EQ made my ER4SR's go from A to S+. Since those posters will move on to next hype in few weeks or more.

 

[3125b]

People still get sore the AKG 702 can sill come 95% close to the HD800 for soundstage.

Don't get me wrong, I like my K702 and for the money, it's an excellent sounding headphone without a doubt. But in terms of imaging, it's nowhere close to my Elear for me. Also, while certainly very unnatural, the sounding of the Elear is the most well rounded in itself (most pleasing if you will) out of the box, the K702 comes very much into its own with some EQ.
I would agree however, that higher end headphones are too expensive for what they are and do - like all things "high end". And of course tonality and price don't correlate.
That means, that buying used becomes very much worth it. Paying 650-700€ for a very good used HD 800 S is something I might consider worth it, while 1500€ new just isn't.

I might add:
Sometimes, things are just overpriced. I heard a 800€ Grado the other day, thing was a bad joke at best, any decent 100-150€ headphone ist superior in almost every way.
In terms of headphones I actually own, I could say that the Beyer T90 (about 400€ when it was new, I paid a good bit less than half that) doesn't necessarily bringt anything more to the table than the 129€ K702 in terms of sound (though it is a lot more durable than the questionable K702). It's different, better in some and worse in other ways to my ears.

Edit:

responds very well to EQ

That's what I think too, it EQs very well, better than all my other headphones. The factory sounding is sensible, a bit more bass extension and more even highs make it that much better.

 

[Blujackaal]

Don't get me wrong, I like my K702 and for the money, it's an excellent sounding headphone without a doubt. But in terms of imaging, it's nowhere close to my Elear for me. Also, while certainly very unnatural, the sounding of the Elear is the most well rounded in itself (most pleasing if you will) out of the box, the K702 comes very much into its own with some EQ.
I would agree however, that higher end headphones are too expensive for what they are and do - like all things "high end". And of course tonality and price don't correlate.
That means, that buying used becomes very much worth it. Paying 650-700€ for a very good used HD 800 S is something I might consider worth it, while 1500€ new just isn't.

That why the K702 is a steal it responds very well to EQ as a plan b if a £750 headphone too much.

 

[Dialectic]

Can we please stop talking about imaging and soundstaging with headphones? In the absence of sophisticated processing, the only imaging you will hear with headphones is generated by the distance of the drivers from your head--hence the nice, spacious soundstages of the AKG K70x and Sennheiser HD800.

 

[solderdude]

You can find excellent headphones in all price classes.
None of them sound the same, none of them have the same comfort, weight and have the same sensitivity.
Headphones loved by person A may be hated by person B.
Not all people have the same ear, head size or amount of hair or ear position opposite the top of their heads.
Some headphones have very microphonic cables, others do not.
Some pads fall apart after a year or so others do not.
Some love (certain types of) leather, pleather, velours, cloth, hybrid pads others may dislike pads others prefer.
headbands can be comfortable or cause discomfort
Clamping force can be low or high and anything in between. Some are bothered, others are not.
Some headphones still have parts available after a decade others can't even be replaced.
There is no 'best headphone' but there sure are headphones that suit all individuals.
Some appreciate a small difference and are willing to pay the premium for whatever reasons.
Others are happy with a $5 Monk earbud.
Not everyone hears 'soundstage' the same way. Not everyone is equally well 'trained' as a listener.
Some people just love what a headphone does well and forgive faults they can live with.
Others act as if certain headphones are unlistenable that others seem to like.
Some like to EQ others use tonal differences as a 'tool'.
Not all headphones are used under the same circumstances and or for the same reasons. This requires headphones with different properties.
Not everyone listens at the same volume level, this too may cause people to prefer certain headphones others may not like.
Not everyone has the same taste in sound/music/tonal balance.
Headphones can not be compared to speakers nor are they supposed to be.
A higher price doesn't have a clear relation to an individual preference. Some do have some relation.
Some people don't have the funds or will to pay for expensive 'works of art' and trash expensive headphones because of this.
Some are really into VFM and find the cheaper headphones they own to be good enough.

None of the owners of any headphone(s) are crazy, misguided or stupid. They just buy what they like and can afford.

That is what everyone should d, buy what you like and can afford.
regardless of what others (experts or not) or measurements say about it.

 

[highpurityusbcable]

These prices make people think that their favorite songs don't sound as good as they can sound. Same goes for any other audio gear.

 

[Dreyfus]

FR graphs or distortion figures derived from a test fixture do have their purpose. But I wouldn't take them as decisive criteria when choosing a headphone. IMO the most important thing is to find a design that fits the individual head and ears. Not only for comfort but especially for the acoustic transmission.

After listening to a lot of <600 Euro open back recommendations and having matched a lot of them via EQ in the past few years I found that every headphone design has its inherent strengths and weaknesses which could be described a unique "fingerprint". This fingerprint presets the potential for a natural and balanced sound, for a good spatial perception and maybe even for the resolution of detail. I did quite a few side-by-side comparisons where I matched the response of two headphones with 31 bands (sometimes even additional fine tuning), listening to intervals of white or pink noise for several hours. Even when matched carefully I can clearly distinguish between lets say a Philips X2HR and an Audioquest Nighthawk when hearing them directly side-by-side. Admittetly, they sound very very close in tonality. Still, the Nighthawk has a much wider and deeper soundstage which makes the presentation much more open and enjoyable.

I think the explination for such phenomenons can be found in phase response, pinna activation and overall HRTF compatability. Most of those factors cannot be accurately reproduced via EQ and are simply the result of careful design decisions. That's where I would say that high end headphones have a higher potential to deliver pleasing results because there is probably more time and effort involved to manufacture a sophisticated piece of hardware. On the other hand there is still the fact that everyones ears are different which causes varying acoustic interactions between the driver at the one and and the ear drum at the other hand. That makes the topic much more complicated and leads to utterly contradictory opinions in some cases.

After all, the least we can say is: Don't let graphs or other ears decide for you - trust your ears!

 

[trl]

Going the LCDX thread I've always noticed this in the headphone world. £350 get you way more bangers than anything at £1000 & higher, Headphones with old drivers(DT 770, K702, etc) or okay mesurements(ER3XR/ER4XR) still can rival them & more so with EQ. I'm always skeptic when detail is what run too when they run out of steam, Since 2 on twitter did this to point on me muting them for a week.

People still get sore the AKG 702 can sill come 95% close to the HD800 for soundstage.

Still LCD-X nails the other headphones enumerated by you in term of bass accuracy. Too bad Audeze failed with LCDX on the mids reproduction way too much to make it transparent enough. Hopefully next version will be more neutral and, why not, less expensive.

 

[thewas]

That's where I would say that high end headphones have a higher potential to deliver pleasing results because there is probably more time and effort involved to manufacture a sophisticated piece of hardware.

Depends though how "high end" is defined, I see usually more real acoustical research like placement of driver and pinna activation at solid high volume manufacturers than at high price small manufacturers which mainly seem to apply their maximum sized planar driver in the middle of the cushion.

 

[Blujackaal]

Still LCD-X nails the other headphones enumerated by you in term of bass accuracy. Too bad Audeze failed with LCDX on the mids reproduction way too much to make it transparent enough. Hopefully next version will be more neutral and, why not, less expensive.

Assuming planars can fix the 4KHz dip that Dynamic & Balanced armatures don't have without distorting.

 

[somy]

I kind of agree given that K702 and HD650 exists for such long time, there is little break through in this field. I was hoping BT headphones with closed back nowadays can reach the level of HD650, but my B&O H95 can’t compare to HD650 in terms of SQ.
On the other hand in HiFi world you pay 95% for the last 5% performance (if it makes sense)

 

[SpaceMonkey]

So we can buy s**t we don't need.

 

[Blujackaal]

I kind of agree given that K702 and HD650 exists for such long time, there is little break through in this field. I was hoping BT headphones with closed back nowadays can reach the level of HD650, but my B&O H95 can’t compare to HD650 in terms of SQ.
On the other hand in HiFi world you pay 95% for the last 5% performance (if it makes sense)

Or you can just EQ in that last performance assuming the driver good. The HD560S with some EQ could turn into a HD600 with more low end & bright but smoother treble.

 

[MayaTlab]

I kind of agree given that K702 and HD650 exists for such long time, there is little break through in this field. I was hoping BT headphones with closed back nowadays can reach the level of HD650, but my B&O H95 can’t compare to HD650 in terms of SQ.

What I was hoping with BT ANC headphones is that now that they're active, with internal DAC/amp, DSPs, and microphones, they'd make good use of the research that's been done regarding FR target curves and their on board electronics to finally bring us a whole range of well engineered, decent sounding HPs with reasonably well shaped FR curves (ie variations around Harman or Harman-like target curves - ie the ones trying to reproduce a decent set of speakers in a decent listening room).
Instead we got this sort of jaggy POS, multiplied by a hundred : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#813/4012/12049
Since My P7 Wireless stopped working I simply haven't been able to replace them with another pair of fairly convenient and well-designed over-ear BT headphones. They're all dreadful IMO, and have no good excuse for it other than utter lack of care.
Worst is that 1) among the best measuring BT ANC headphones of the market today is... the Beats Solo Pro. When you're a traditional audio company and you're beaten by Beats, you have a problem (well actually these are rather Apple headphones, so it's no surprise they're improving), and 2) for some reason it's recent passive headphones that seem to make better use of that research (K371, HD560S, etc.).

 

[somy]

What I was hoping with BT ANC headphones is that now that they're active, with internal DAC/amp, DSPs, and microphones, they'd make good use of the research that's been done regarding FR target curves and their on board electronics to finally bring us a whole range of well engineered, decent sounding HPs with reasonably well shaped FR curves (ie variations around Harman or Harman-like target curves - ie the ones trying to reproduce a decent set of speakers in a decent listening room).
Instead we got this sort of jaggy POS, multiplied by a hundred : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#813/4012/12049
Since My P7 Wireless stopped working I simply haven't been able to replace them with another pair of fairly convenient and well-designed over-ear BT headphones. They're all dreadful IMO, and have no good excuse for it other than utter lack of care.
Worst is that 1) among the best measuring BT ANC headphones of the market today is... the Beats Solo Pro. When you're a traditional audio company and you're beaten by Beats, you have a problem (well actually these are rather Apple headphones, so it's no surprise they're improving), and 2) for some reason it's recent passive headphones that seem to make better use of that research (K371, HD560S, etc.).

I think with H95 B&O applied some EQ to improve the FR curve. Based on the review below I think it looks the best among all the commercial BT ANC headphones, which was the reason why I bought them:
https://www.lbtechreviews.com/test/headphones/bang-olufsen-beoplay-h95
Maybe you should give a try? From what I read it is superior to P7 wireless in terms of SQ. I can say the sound is very nature, with no to low emphasis on bass or treble. The sound stage is wide and imaging is also good.

 

[MayaTlab]

I'll wait a little bit for other HP introductions in the coming months and possibly directly compare them all.
Yamaha is going to release a pair of ANC BT HPs, and Apple is rumoured to do so as well (the latter ones I'm the most hopeful for provided Apple's design team didn't put excessive constraints on their acoustics team).
It's just really, really frustrating to see what active headphones with sophisticated DSPs could bring to the table and see what's actually being released. Sorry, rant over .