The most overrated and underrated headphone you tried?

[bobbooo]

Those problems have been largely overcome. Don't get me wrong. I still use and like wired, but you are overstating the case against BT.

Have they? Large over-ear Bluetooth headphones have gotten better, but in-ears (the primary form factor for mobile users) are still lagging (pun intended) well behind wired, with the consumer having to choose between unreliable connectivity or looking like an idiot with antenna sticking out of your ears (*cough*AppleAirpods). And as I said, these Bluetooth IEMs do not have long enough battery life to get you through a long-haul flight, a big inconvenience for many people, and their batteries will be even further degraded after a couple of years usage.

And then there's the downgrade in audio fidelity. Sony's LDAC, supposedly a 'hi-res Bluetooth codec', is nowhere near even 16-bit CD-quality at its highest bitrate:

The majority of devices don't even achieve this bitrate however due to Bluetooth's poor connection strength when e.g. you phone's in your pocket (a very common occurrence). This is what a lot of devices default to, and others often fall back to when connection strength invariably decreases:

And those graphs are for hi-res sources - the results for CD-quality sources would be even worse. Even Sony's own top of the line Bluetooth IEMs, the WH1000XM3, only achieve around -60dBm connection strength in real-world usage, which either results in dropped audio (skipping), or falling back to the lowest bitrate setting. And this is the best that Bluetooth has to offer. It's an utter mess. None of the issues I've mentioned exist with wired headphones. If you care at all about sound quality, you will stay well clear of Bluetooth until the technology matures (if that ever happens).

 

[Frank Dernie]

Have they? Large over-ear Bluetooth headphones have gotten better, but in-ears (the primary form factor for mobile users) are still lagging (pun intended) well behind wired, with the consumer having to choose between unreliable connectivity or looking like an idiot with antenna sticking out of your ears (*cough*AppleAirpods). And as I said, these Bluetooth IEMs do not have long enough battery life to get you through a long-haul flight, a big inconvenience for many people, and their batteries will be even further degraded after a couple of years usage.

And then there's the downgrade in audio fidelity. Sony's LDAC, supposedly a 'hi-res Bluetooth codec', is nowhere near even 16-bit CD-quality at its highest bitrate:

The majority of devices don't even achieve this bitrate however due to Bluetooth's poor connection strength when e.g. you phone's in your pocket (a very common occurrence). This is what a lot of devices default to, and others often fall back to when connection strength invariably decreases:

And those graphs are for hi-res sources - the results for CD-quality sources would be even worse. Even Sony's own top of the line Bluetooth IEMs, the WH1000XM3, only achieve around -60dBm connection strength in real-world usage, which either results in dropped audio (skipping), or falling back to the lowest bitrate setting. And this is the best that Bluetooth has to offer. It's an utter mess. None of the issues I've mentioned exist with wired headphones. If you care at all about sound quality, you will stay well clear of Bluetooth until the technology matures (if that ever happens).

You appear to have a strong opinion based on what you have heard or read.
I have a strong opinion based on decades of actual experience with many different types of both wired and blutooth headphones travelling to work at Grand Prix motor races for 35 years then travelling on trains and buses around here.
For travel blutooth and noise cancellation are a big, big plus since there is no way on earth you will detect the slight loss of sound quality due to slightly lower bit rate whereas what you actually do hear will be much more of the music (at least with wide dynamic range music).
If you mainly listen to headphones at home or another low noise environment putting up with cables is probably worth it on some music where the bit rate makes lossless a worthwhile improvement (the gain is tiny on a lot of music IME).
I haven't done a direct compare between otherwise similar headphones to hear if it is actually so, I do have B&W P7 as well as the PX so I could compare at home but I haven't used the P7 on the bus since I got the PX. The PX with noise cancellation is massively and blatantly better for this use the gain is HUGE and way, way more than the difference between cheap ear buds and [insert your favourite here] for listening on the move IME.
Edit: based on my experience that Practical Mechanic page is childish biased nonsense.

 

[thomasjast]

I recently tried the Sennheiser HD599. Totally underrated! It seems like no one talks about them, even if they are new-ish in the grand scheme of things.

When I get my pair at a discounted $169 CAD (happens a few times a year on Amazon), I'll be replacing my HD6XX with them. They sound great off portable devices with no amp, don't have the 4Khz dip of the HD58X or 660S and have more bass than both. I'm willing to give up the flawless 6XX treble for that.

 

[VMAT4]

Most overrated headphone I've tried, the Fostex T50RP MKIII. Produced instant listener fatigue for me.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

I don't follow - why would mobile listening require wireless headphones? The pairing problems, latency, limited battery life, and unstable stream connection and quality of Bluetooth headphones are all incredibly inconvenient compared to the simple convenience of just plugging in your headphones and listening at maximum fidelity without worrying about anything else.

So let's go one by one through each of the perceived weaknesses.

Pairing problems - Turn on BT on the source device, open the case, put them on. Before you are finished putting them on your ears--which is quick because there are no cables to untangle--they are paired. BT 5.0 inside. Simple and straightforward as that.

Latency - Latency is a problem for music listening? Latency is actually quite good even on YouTube and Netflix. I don't game so I can't speak about those latency issues. But for audio and video, latency is a non issue.

Limited battery life - eight hours on the buds, 24 hours more from the charging case. Total, 32 hours. Drop them in the case 20 minutes, they recharge another two hours. Easily enough for a trans-Pacific Bali-NYC flight. My other pair (Aviot) have an even larger capacity battery case so I only charge it once a month.

Unstable connection - they keep up with me sans any glitching or drop-outs with AptX (352 kbps) throughout my two story house. I leave the source on the second floor, go down to the kitchen on the first floor and I get nothing but continued connection and smooth music reproduction.

The combination of sound quality and convenience is unrivaled.

I have actually listened via LDAC. Have you?

I am afraid that you are barking up a long-felled tree.

 

[Blujackaal]

The music on my phone is all lossless. The loss of SQ using 256AAC is tiny, so completely inaudible on a bus or train where noise cancellation is a much bigger gain in enjoyment than a totally masked by noise potential increase in sound quality.
Having travelled using the original Walkman headphones, which were on ear with zero attenuation of background noise, big closed back over ear 'phones then, for very many years, Etymotic ER4S originally with their silicone tips and then custom moulded ones I can attest that effective noise cancellation, I have wired and blutooth choices, is the biggest improvement in sound quality for on the move listening over the 40 years I have been doing it.
Not needed for listening at home, of course.

In that context 256 AAC fine since your not double compressing.

 

[Blujackaal]

Have they? Large over-ear Bluetooth headphones have gotten better, but in-ears (the primary form factor for mobile users) are still lagging (pun intended) well behind wired, with the consumer having to choose between unreliable connectivity or looking like an idiot with antenna sticking out of your ears (*cough*AppleAirpods). And as I said, these Bluetooth IEMs do not have long enough battery life to get you through a long-haul flight, a big inconvenience for many people, and their batteries will be even further degraded after a couple of years usage.

And then there's the downgrade in audio fidelity. Sony's LDAC, supposedly a 'hi-res Bluetooth codec', is nowhere near even 16-bit CD-quality at its highest bitrate:

The majority of devices don't even achieve this bitrate however due to Bluetooth's poor connection strength when e.g. you phone's in your pocket (a very common occurrence). This is what a lot of devices default to, and others often fall back to when connection strength invariably decreases:

And those graphs are for hi-res sources - the results for CD-quality sources would be even worse. Even Sony's own top of the line Bluetooth IEMs, the WH1000XM3, only achieve around -60dBm connection strength in real-world usage, which either results in dropped audio (skipping), or falling back to the lowest bitrate setting. And this is the best that Bluetooth has to offer. It's an utter mess. None of the issues I've mentioned exist with wired headphones. If you care at all about sound quality, you will stay well clear of Bluetooth until the technology matures (if that ever happens).

LDAC is a semi lossless codec, It's like making a wavpack hybrid file at 330 & 990kbps. I highly doubt people could A/B 990kbps or even the 330kbps, Let alone 256kbps AAC if we go back full lossy codecs. If there phone is full of 16bit lossless files.

 

[nhatlam96]

Overrated: Sennheiser HD650, Momentum over-ears, Focal Clear, Oppo PM3, every Bluetooth and ANC headphone

Underrated: Koss ESP/95X, HiFiman HE4XX, Focal Spirit Classic, Sony MH755, Samsung EO-IG955 (tuned by AKG)

I was literally minutes away of pulling the trigger on the Focal Clears for 750€. How is it overrated?

 

[Asylum Seeker]

LDAC is a semi lossless codec, It's like making a wavpack hybrid file at 330 & 990kbps. I highly doubt people could A/B 990kbps or even the 330kbps, Let alone 256kbps AAC if we go back full lossy codecs. If there phone is full of 16bit lossless files.

'Semi-lossless' = Kinda pregnant

 

[A800]

Overrated: Headphones.
Underrated: Speakers.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

Under-rated - IEMs

 

[ReaderZ]

DT990 were one of the highest scoring headphones in Harman blind tests. Untrained listeners rated them even higher than the Harman target.

Link to source?

 

[Palladium]

Those problems have been largely overcome. Don't get me wrong. I still use and like wired, but you are overstating the case against BT.

I can't stand wired after I got my Taotronics TT-BH16.

 

[Nango]

I was literally minutes away of pulling the trigger on the Focal Clears for 750€. How is it overrated?

Absolutely in all terms vs €300 phones like HD6xx.

 

[solderdude]

Sometimes to get slightly better (or different, more pleasing) sound one will have to fork out a lot more money. Sometimes even with less money !

The thing is for one person it is worth it, for another it is not.
For some spending $ 30.- on headphones is already enough, for others $ 4k is not a real problem.

This is why over- and under-rated does not really exist and is rather a personal opinion..... and everyone has them.

IF you like the sound and have the cash I would pick the Clears over the HD6XX in a heartbeat. Others might not or might not appreciate the different sound it has.

Needless to say both are good headphones and no one can tell you whether the premium over the HD6XX is worth it but the customer himself.

 

[ZolaIII]

Have they? Large over-ear Bluetooth headphones have gotten better, but in-ears (the primary form factor for mobile users) are still lagging (pun intended) well behind wired, with the consumer having to choose between unreliable connectivity or looking like an idiot with antenna sticking out of your ears (*cough*AppleAirpods). And as I said, these Bluetooth IEMs do not have long enough battery life to get you through a long-haul flight, a big inconvenience for many people, and their batteries will be even further degraded after a couple of years usage.

And then there's the downgrade in audio fidelity. Sony's LDAC, supposedly a 'hi-res Bluetooth codec', is nowhere near even 16-bit CD-quality at its highest bitrate:

The majority of devices don't even achieve this bitrate however due to Bluetooth's poor connection strength when e.g. you phone's in your pocket (a very common occurrence). This is what a lot of devices default to, and others often fall back to when connection strength invariably decreases:

And those graphs are for hi-res sources - the results for CD-quality sources would be even worse. Even Sony's own top of the line Bluetooth IEMs, the WH1000XM3, only achieve around -60dBm connection strength in real-world usage, which either results in dropped audio (skipping), or falling back to the lowest bitrate setting. And this is the best that Bluetooth has to offer. It's an utter mess. None of the issues I've mentioned exist with wired headphones. If you care at all about sound quality, you will stay well clear of Bluetooth until the technology matures (if that ever happens).

LDAC @ 990 KB/s has SINAD of 98 DB which is more than a CD & perfectly enough. You do still need LG or Sony handsets to use it like that. TWS aren't there, headaphones are not there when it comes to sound quality but you can make a EMI + BT neckband combo or BT receiver + earphones/headphones & get there. Example FiiO FH1s EMI's + FiiO's LC-BT2 or Shanling UP4 BT receiver.

 

[Nango]

Sometimes to get slightly better (or different, more pleasing) sound one will have to fork out a lot more money. Sometimes even with less money !

The thing is for one person it is worth it, for another it is not.
For some spending $ 30.- on headphones is already enough, for others $ 4k is not a real problem.

This is why over- and under-rated does not really exist and is rather a personal opinion..... and everyone has them.

IF you like the sound and have the cash I would pick the Clears over the HD6XX in a heartbeat. Others might not or might not appreciate the different sound it has.

Needless to say both are good headphones and no one can tell you whether the premium over the HD6XX is worth it but the customer himself.

Empiricism clearly shows Clear is overrated over HD6xx.

 

[ZolaIII]

Empiricism clearly shows Clear is overrated over HD6xx.

Which empiricism? The measurements are only a guide line, the "scales" are just a joke, the driver & cone characteristics are again only a guide line the rest really depends on personal preference and fit.
Edit:
Underrated is when some rewiever because it's personal preferences, affinities and pore fit discard some as bad. I mean yes they ware bad for him but that doesn't apply to everyone.
Overrated when such rates some very highly based on same criterias & you fall for it but they don't quite work for you.

In the end need to try and find out what really works for you.

 

[Nango]

No, empiricism means when only 1 out of 5 says Clear is better than HD6xx but 4 of 5 say HD6xx is way better, then Clear is overrated.

 

[ZolaIII]

No, empiricism means when only 1 out of 5 says Clear is better than HD6xx but 4 of 5 say HD6xx is way better, then Clear is overrated.

When great majority likes something that's a start but it still doesn't need to mean anything. There's a lot examples of very highly rated products for instance on Amazon which are actually bad.