The most overrated and underrated headphone you tried?

[Foulchet]

By non enthousiasts/tech websites or youtubers :

Overrated : Sony MDR1000X, even for ANC BT headphones I preferred the sound of Bose QC or Parrot Zik 3. Too dark for my taste but not really bad neither, just overrated.

By hifi enthousiasts :

Underrated : AirPods Pro. I actually find the sound quite pleasing, neutral and even deep for the size.

 

[CuteStudio]

Overrated : Sony MDR1000X, even for ANC BT headphones I preferred the sound of Bose QC

I have the QC15 which I like, I listened to the Sony in a shop, and was baffled - for me it had none of the clarity of the QC15.

 

[Bleib]

Overrated: Koss Porta Pro

 

[solderdude]

The funny thing about the Portapro (and KSC35 / 75) I find is that when you listen to one on its own it actually sounds fine.
Certainly for the money.
Getting a good seal and comfort (I had to file of the hooks so they don't jab in my pinnae) is not really easy but essential.
With proper seating and listening to these only how can these be overrated for the price ?

O.K. They lack lower bass (the current ones seem worse than the older ones). The pads start to fall apart after some time of usage, they look like old 60's headphones and the moment you compare them directly to something better you'll know they aren't perfect.

To most folks the Portapro (and KSC35 / 75) have good VFM and decent sound that the brain easily adopts to.

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

Most underrated headphone: Sony CD900st. It has a great vocal quality that I can't seem to find in other headphones.

Most overrated headphone: HD600, ZMFs, and Empyrean.

 

[Hoegaardener70]

Most overrated: ZMF Verite Closed. Hard to drive, and I preferred my Stellia for general use (I owned them at the same time).

Underrated (on ASR at least): Abyss AB-1266 TC. Amir gave it a golfing panda (well, with eq) which still doesn't seem to redeem the headphone and help much in the eyes of the community here. Fair enough but - I still find them the most fun headphones out there (and I had many).

 

[pk500]

Overrated: Audio-Technica ATH-M40x or M50x. For starters, these are the most uncomfortable headphones I've ever worn. Thin pads, small ear cups. Created burning pain in my right ear within 30 minutes. Second, I laugh out loud when I read people suggest mixing on the M40x or the M50x, especially the 50s. These cans have V-shaped cans, with booming bass, hot treble and hollowed-out mids. The 50s are worse than the 40s, but both are inexplicably so popular.

Underrated: Tough one, as most of the cans I like have received their fair share of praise from audiophiles and the audiophile press/reviewers. But I still don't think the HiFiMan HE-400se gets the praise it deserves for a terrific-sounding planar-magnetic open-back can for $150. These sound FAR better than some $300-400 cans I've heard.

 

[Hark01]

Underrated: Fostex T40RP mk3

Best closed back for the price. Fantastic value. Comfort is only somewhat problematic.

 

[WickedInsignia]

Overrated: Meze 99 Classics, mostly due to their incredible review from Tyll using the old pads. They sound nothing like that now but somehow still carry the reputation.
Underrated: Shure SRH440. When I tried them in the store I had never heard of them before but immediately thought "WOW these sound good", and sure enough they almost match the Harman Target. I didn't bring them home with me since the comfort was a little meh, but I don't hear much about these and they need to be more talked-about (although I can understand they're not everyone's cup of tea with the high-treble peak).

Exactly where they should be: The M50x. This headphone straddles the line between love and hate for a lot of people without anyone being perfectly reasonable about them, but the love/hate is so equalized that it results in them occupying the market segment they actually should.
They are just a very good reliable headphone that ticks all the boxes, with relatively minor deviations from the Harman Target that make them more "exciting" and a little better for picking out details in monitoring applications (to my knowledge). I've been all over the headphones in this price bracket and nothing else does as good a job with build quality, listener-to-listener consistency, FR balance, flexibility and comfort anywhere near the price.
If the AKG K371 fit you and seal properly they beat the M50x in SQ, but they have serious user-to-user consistency issues.

 

[lystor]

Overrated:
- Hifiman Sundara. Muddy bass compared to DT 1770 Pro / DT 1990 Pro / HD 800S / HD 660S.
- Sony WH-1000XM4 / WH-1000XM3. Too boomy without EQ, narrow soundstage. Frequency response on wired connection is <censored>.

Underrated:
- Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro. Best bass between open back headphones.
- Beyerdynamic DT 1770 Pro. Best closed back headphones without EQ.
- Sennheiser HD 660S. Amazing for vocal music.

 

[sprellemannen]

I just tried the Pioneer SE Monitor 5, just bought by a friend. This is a model I wasn't aware of, expensive but I am very impressed with it. The sound seems very balanced, neither bass heavy nor bright, and they feel very premium. I can't help feeling that if they had been made by one of the hipster headphone brands they would have a much higher profile.

Soundwise, I agree. Unfortunately, I will not recommend them, though. Confer this. I gave mine to a friend.

 

[sprellemannen]

Overrated: Headphones.

I disagree. There is in my opinion no cheaper and easier way to high quality sound than headphones.

 

[Keened]

I disagree. There is in my opinion no cheaper and easier way to high quality sound than headphones.

Ehhhh, almost. There is no better way to high quality sound 200hz+ that properly fitted headphone or IEMs. Also you can't get more nearfield then sticking the speakers right next to/in your ears

But low frequency isn't really something they can do unless you pair them with some kind of tactile feedback device. Low frequency is so weird because we're not very sensitive to it in terms of actual signal pick up, but we're very attuned to that frequency range in our signal processing. The reason why it's been spurned in the hi-fi world has been the historical difficulty in generating, isolating, and encoding that range (at least in Vinyl). Also cultural bias towards music reproduction/preservation where the melody carries the rhythmic function rather than the low frequency percussion.

Open back headphones + Subwoofers
IEMs + tactile transducers
Closed back coaxial drivers with 'meta' materials to regulate back pressure (?)

Those are the best full range combinations I can think of.

 

[stevenswall]

Ehhhh, almost. There is no better way to high quality sound 200hz+ that properly fitted headphone or IEMs. Also you can't get more nearfield then sticking the speakers right next to/in your ears

But low frequency isn't really something they can do unless you pair them with some kind of tactile feedback device.

Why so high? At least down to 80hz headphones seem to absolutely trash trillion (read: infinite) dollar systems unless it's in a fully treated room when it comes to detail and frequency response. The soundstage is a huge part of why I listen to speakers now, and if everything were recorded for headphones, I'd say they make speaker soundstage utter garbage in almost all systems anyone is ever going to encounter.

More focused on the frequency you picked though, as I'd say even a 27hz note on a piano seems perfectly audible on many headphones. You can still hear a lot of deep bass, and if a headphone can play that I'm pretty satisfied even if my body isn't shaking. Midbass impact that some talk about I'm still not sure about as that correlates in my mind to those pursuing "cinema" or "live rock bank" sounding systems which focus on loudness and low fidelity.

In short: Headphones seem better than speakers for anything besides soundstage over 30hz.

Speakers seem better for soundstage and if you want to feel physical vibrations through your body in addition to your ears.

 

[JJB70]

Soundwise, I agree. Unfortunately, I will not recommend them, though. Confer this. I gave mine to a friend.

At that price, availability of spares and servicing should be part of the deal. If Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic are able to maintain a supply of spares and service even their relatively modest models you would hope high end stuff would too. It's one of those aspects often lost in purchasing decisions.

 

[Keened]

More focused on the frequency you picked though, as I'd say even a 27hz note on a piano seems perfectly audible on many headphones. You can still hear a lot of deep bass, and if a headphone can play that I'm pretty satisfied even if my body isn't shaking. Midbass impact that some talk about I'm still not sure about as that correlates in my mind to those pursuing "cinema" or "live rock bank" sounding systems which focus on loudness and low fidelity.

High fidelity is loudness. The kick you feel from lower frequency is just as much a part of the music as the (arbitrary) key scale relations

Fidelity simply meant faithfulness to the original and most music is meant to be felt with the ears and the body. I strongly feel that we dismiss low frequency content because we have a hard time working with it, but all else being equal most people would agree music with significant low frequency energy is perceived as being better than if you had the same music and highpassed it.

Also most of the advantages you list are not headphones per se as nearfield vs farfield, look at all of the active monitors which sound amazing so long as you're not trying to produce too many db, same advantages but not headphones.

 

[stevenswall]

High fidelity is loudness. The kick you feel from lower frequency is just as much a part of the music as the (arbitrary) key scale relations

Fidelity simply meant faithfulness to the original and most music is meant to be felt with the ears and the body. I strongly feel that we dismiss low frequency content because we have a hard time working with it, but all else being equal most people would agree music with significant low frequency energy is perceived as being better than if you had the same music and highpassed it.

Also most of the advantages you list are not headphones per se as nearfield vs farfield, look at all of the active monitors which sound amazing so long as you're not trying to produce too many db, same advantages but not headphones.

Most live music perhaps, loudness would contribute to fidelity. Seems like many studios don't have subs and most engineers are aware their audience is primarily listening on headphones, so I'm not sure about music being meant to be felt.

I have a room corrected dual 12" Genelec subwoofer about a foot and a half from my back. It's great. With excellent headphones, I am still perceiving the bass and primarily miss the soundstage.

Nearfield is great... But I'd take IEM bass over many nearfield monitors bass as it's more extended and even if we're not talking about a sub.

 

[ReaderZ]

Why so high? At least down to 80hz headphones seem to absolutely trash trillion (read: infinite) dollar systems unless it's in a fully treated room when it comes to detail and frequency response. The soundstage is a huge part of why I listen to speakers now, and if everything were recorded for headphones, I'd say they make speaker soundstage utter garbage in almost all systems anyone is ever going to encounter.

More focused on the frequency you picked though, as I'd say even a 27hz note on a piano seems perfectly audible on many headphones. You can still hear a lot of deep bass, and if a headphone can play that I'm pretty satisfied even if my body isn't shaking. Midbass impact that some talk about I'm still not sure about as that correlates in my mind to those pursuing "cinema" or "live rock bank" sounding systems which focus on loudness and low fidelity.

In short: Headphones seem better than speakers for anything besides soundstage over 30hz.

Speakers seem better for soundstage and if you want to feel physical vibrations through your body in addition to your ears.

Comfort, speakers are on an entirely different league when it comes to comfort.

 

[Loathecliff]

AKG K52

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B019EACGSU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

'Wot HiFi' liked them, so I was duty bound to see how crap they were.
They were/are grim. One victim typed of thin tinny sound. Mine were muffled. Great quality control in action then
Who would expect more from a magazine started by a slippery politician's publishing group (Haymarket)?
In a more enlightened age I will be able to invoice them for stealing my time walking to the Post Office on a wet day in Glasgow.

Best comment:- "If you hate music, you'll love these headphones"

 

[Timcognito]

Not a huge IEM user but like the 1More quad driver (2+ year owner) because like the price, robust construction, twist into ear fit, mid bass emphasis and mostly because I get all that without worrying about losing or breaking them when traveling or out about. So good value good sound: Underrated

MEASUREMENTS: 1MORE Quad Driver IEM (E1010)

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com