How $1,500 Headphones Are Made 353
CNETNate writes "A tour of Sennheiser's Hanover factory reveals for the first time how its audiophile headphones are assembled by hand. The company recently announced its most expensive and innovative headphones to date, the HD 800, which discarded the conventional method of headphone driver design for a new 'donut-shaped' ring driver idea. Only 5,000 of these headphones can be made in a year, and this gallery offers a behind-the-scenes look at the construction process."
Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA:
Honest to god, I can't tell real audiophile reviews from the parodies anymore :-(
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you're looking for labratory levels of precision imho there's no point once you're above the HD-555 range.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not convinced there's a point anyway. With headphones, you get so much difference in sound just from how little or how much the foam pads are compressed that I can't imagine anyone being able to use the word "accurate" when talking about headphones unless it is tongue-in-cheek. For accuracy, nothing beats a well-designed listening room with good speakers. Headphones are fundamentally "ballpark" at best.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
They are however excellent when it comes to playing games at a fun volume and getting decent positional audio.
And flattening my ears. And yanking things off my desk.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
And flattening my ears. And yanking things off my desk.
Do you want my gf at less than $1,500? She could scream your ears to flat and yank things off your apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
I already have a psychotic ex with an underage boyfriend who's probably a roid nut and can lift me and her with one arm each like we weigh nothing.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
I've had your gf and I'd like my headphones back please.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Great, now Slashdot is going to be sued by a sheriff in Illinois.
Stop pimping here, go back to craigslist!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No thanks. I have a wife for that. That's why you'll probably find the biggest buyers for headphones are married men.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
And yanking things off my desk.
Doom 3, Nightmare, in total darkness except for the screen. You know what happens when your cat touches you?
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Aaanyway, while not big on headphones I do use voice chat a lot, but my headsets never last very long. I got a sennheiser headset for christmas - the sound was great, the micropho
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are however excellent when it comes to playing games at a fun volume...
Just keep in mind that that "fun" volume is causing permanent hearing loss. :-)
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not convinced there's a point anyway. With headphones, you get so much difference in sound just from how little or how much the foam pads are compressed
Well.. No. No you don't. That's the thing -- one of the many differences between $5 headphones and $500 headphones.
I work with audio all the time (it's my job - I invent audio algorithms for broadcast, and related things), and I'm very happy with my HD650s. They were worth every dollar! However, if I get a chance to test the HD800s without having to buy them first, I certainly will. :)
Re: (Score:2)
(it's my job - I invent audio algorithms for broadcast, and related things)
I'm genuinely curious as to the purpose of the audio algorithms. Is it to obtain a specific sound? Can you describe a typical algorithm you've created and what it's used for?
Algorithms - Fuzzy math for music or just fuzzy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Algorithms for compressing audio and/or encoding it for transmission? You have to test them for quality before you can even think about using them for broadcast...
Ah, I'm not trying to offend you directly here, but I AM curious as to who's really thinking about it and what their standards are?
Radio certainly doesn't give a shit about the compression or "exciter" limits they may add to ensure maximum volume/output for their 150,000 watts of broadcast. As long as they're louder than the next station on the dial, who cares.
The music industry as a whole (90% of recordings) doesn't give a shit about quality, as their levels of mastering and "exciting" are all turned up t
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... what? No.
You mention how much the compression of the foam pads makes the sound sooo different that you can't call headphones "accurate" yet speakers in a room some how end up more accurate? The number of speakers, the size of the room, the material of the room, the position of the speakers, the positioning of yourself and so many other factors arguably make the room and speakers far less accurate than headphones.
And just what do you mean by "accurate"? For the sake of argument lets say accuracy is sounding as close to real life as possible. So we have our hypothetical concert with ourselves seated in the 2nd row. We can get a dummy and shove two microphones into his dummy ears for recording the sound. Do you think a 2/4/8 speaker setup would be more "accurate" than headphones? The headphones are practically stream audio directly into the ears.
Consider the professionals. What do you think all those stage technicians, sound engineers, etc. etc. use when dealing with audio? That's right, headphones.
Maybe... maybe we're not dealing with music. Maybe you just want "accurate" sound reproduction and ignore things like audio positioning, head transfer functions and the likes. Take for example an explosion. Then I guess the headphones loose out to the sub woofer.
And I also bring up the car metaphor. Headphones are the motorcycles of the audio world. Sure the top end cars are faster/better but motorcycles are so much cheaper. Buying a $1500 pair of headphones is a lot more accessible than buying a well designed room with speakers.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
So we have our hypothetical concert with ourselves seated in the 2nd row. We can get a dummy and shove two microphones into his dummy ears for recording the sound. Do you think a 2/4/8 speaker setup would be more "accurate" than headphones?
Do you already know that what you're describing is "binaural recording" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording [wikipedia.org]. When you listen to them with headphones, you get amazing position-awareness of the sounds. Some early binaural recordings were of story dramatazations - and you could hear the door creaking open "behind you".
Take for example an explosion. Then I guess the headphones loose out to the sub woofer.
You bring up an interesting idea... using headphones along with a subwoofer to get get the superior sound of headphones and the "feel" of the low-end.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line: a well-designed, well-treated room with flat speakers sounds reasonably to very accurate with good translation to most listening situations (from home use to club listening with extended bass response). Phones are great for isolation and accuracy especially when your
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, way off. Mod parent down.
Speakers are themselves fundamentally flawed. Headphones can send sound to the exact location needed while speakers are "ballparking" where the listener will be.
Space limitations are null, audio positioning is null, and annoying your neighbors is null.
Furthermore, good headphones have the capacity to send much less-distorted, higher-quality sound than speakers.
Good headphones will always produce better sound than good speakers. If you don't believe me, ask your local audiophile
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wow, way off. Mod you down.
You can adjust a monitor's angle relative to a listener's ear canal to a much higher degree of accuracy than you can with headphones. If your headphone speakers are 10 mm away from your ear (a generous assumption), an accidental 1 mm movement in your cans is equal to 15 cm of movement relative to a set of monitors 1.5 meters away. Headpho
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Guitars don't count. The whole point of guitar amps and their open-baffle speakers is to produce (controlled) distortion and coloration.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Therefore it is important to have a good baseline to mix your music on, the perferable baseline being listening to the music through a good pair of headphones.
In the bigger studios (in the UK at least) it's smallish sized monitors that provide the "baseline", as they are more accurate than tiny headphone speakers and tend to colour the sound far less than really big speakers (too much compression if I recall correctly).
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? This is the exact opposite of what most audiophiles say...
Audiophiles also pay $10,000 for wooden knobs, $5000 for foam pads, $20,000 for pieces of hardboard....
Personally I would think saying the opposite of what audiophiles say is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a point [headphone.com] well past the $100 mark - the question is is it worth the money, which depends on how much money you happen to have sitting around doing nothing as well as the relative objective quality of the product.
That said I'm not buying anything more expensive than the HD555 in the foreseeable future. In fact with digital room correction techniques I might not be spending anywhere near that much on headphones again, ever.
Also headphones are not just for the sound, they have to feel comfortable too
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
These days, even Sennheiser's low end is "good enough" for the non-snob audiophile. I picked up a pair of HD202s and I'm thoroughly happy for now. (I don't bring my 555's to school.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an audiophile, but if you can't tell the difference between the 202s and 555s+ you definitely aren't one either. I own the 595s and the 202s and there is a huge difference. The 202s are good, but not "good enough" for people who want something better. And no, those people aren't necessarily snobs.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:4, Informative)
earbuds are crap, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you recommend a good pair of headphones that have a 1/4" input jack as shown on the HD800? Preferably something under $120. I checked and it looks like from the pics on amazon the input cable is permanently attached to the headphones. I'm sure the cable detaching from the headphones isn't a big issue on higher end 'phones but that's been the mode of failure for my last 4 sets of $30+ headphones over the last five years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
The cables on the HD800 are removable, however as far as I know there are no aftermarket/replacement cables available yet.
There are many options available for the HD580/600/650s, including balanced cable options.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the HD800 uses a stereo 1/4" to two mono 1/4" cables? Or am I mistaken?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never actually seen them, but from what I've heard they use some rare connector [head-fi.org] that can be purchased individually, but for a crazy price. And more annoyingly, its a different connector as used on the other Sennheisers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
HD800 Headphone socket [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's worthless. In the photo essay (photo#8) they show that there's clearly enough space for a standard 1/4" phono plug jack. Is there some sort of (audio quality) reason why they went with a proprietary connection rather than the 100-year standard phono plug which works with literally everything in existence?
I just want something I can plug a standard speaker cable from my HT-5H guitar amp's headphone jack to my headphones directly. I might just hack my own solution this is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting; I just wish they cost less than $180.00 (!)
Re: (Score:2)
Those cost twice as much as the 505s, and require an adapter
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:4, Informative)
I was upset when these came out, my HD-650s [sennheiserusa.com] aren't top of the line anymore.. That said, man are the 800s ugly.
My SR-80s [gradolabs.com] are very good headphones for the money (~$100) and rival the HD650s. One of these day's I'm going to listen to a set of RS2is [gradolabs.com], one of their upper-mid level headphones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was trying to decide between the HD-555s and 595s about two years ago. I went with the 595s, and I'm confident I made the right decision (for myself). At the time, I had only the reviews for the two, with a pretty consistent conclusion: the two are very similar. Pretty much same comfort level, and maybe 10% better sound. For double the price.
So why were the 595s the correct decision for me? Because I use my headphones for about 4 hours a work day, 50 weeks a year. At 1000 listening hours a year, I expect
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Signal generators.
Re: (Score:2)
Any idiot can hook a signal generator up to a pair of headphones, but how do you accurately measure the sound coming out of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice macro pictures on the front page. No way I'm going to click through 10 pages just to read a story though.
Re:Sarcastic or not? (Score:5, Funny)
Honest to god, I can't tell real audiophile reviews from the parodies anymore :-(
I bet you're reading it on a cheap LCD display that discards all the engrams in the article so it is impossible to spot parody, irony or sarcasm. If you really want to be able to appreciate this sort of thing you need to read the page on a real man's display [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Now THIS [wordpress.com] is a MAN's display!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Meh. If I want audiophile headphones, I look across the border from Germany: Austria's AKG.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a pair of 600 ohm AKG K-240s, and while they are nice headphones, they do not rival Grados at the same price point.
I have never heard any of their more expensive headphones like the K701s, so I can't comment on those, but lots of people swear by them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think there is a difference?
All headphones are hand-made... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, at least you know they won't skimp on the lead in the solder.
Re:All headphones are hand-made... (Score:5, Informative)
I've owned a large number of Sennheisers.
And no, that's not because I collect them, it's because the damned connections keep failing, on everything from 212-pros up through a set of 595s.
I'm not ready to call Sennheiser reliable, even if they are more reliable than a lot of the low-end competition. Headphones could be a LOT more reliable if someone would take some damned time to find a more reliable way to deliver signal than a tiny wiggly wire and a bit of rigid solder.
Re: (Score:2)
HD650 has a detachable cable. Maybe they've finally learned?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Headphones could be a LOT more reliable if someone would take some damned time to find a more reliable way to deliver signal than a tiny wiggly wire and a bit of rigid solder.
Aw, c'mon. There's no profit in that. Like you said: you keep buying Sennheiser, even though they're not reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed these have a 1/4" input jack. I'm in the same boat as you, far too many of my headphones have failed where the cord meets the 'phones. Of course if you're spending more than $100 on headphones and they break more than likely a) they're still under warranty and if not b) any competent TV repair shop should be able to fix the headphones for $20 in less than half an hour. I'm gonna keep browsing this thread, hoping someone posts a link to an affordable brand of decent headphones that has a 1/4" input
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best sub-100$ headphones are the Grado SR80s and the SR125s. The 125s are slightly over your budget, but if you don't mind spending a little extra, they are well worth it. The SR80s might not cut it for you since they feature the 3.5mm jack.
BTW, if you are seriously looking for a good set of cans, browse headphone.org or head-fi.org rather than slashdot ;)
or else (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You get what you pay for (Score:3, Interesting)
A few days ago, I bought the cheapest pair of computer speakers with subwoofers I could find in the neighborhood, $USD 15.
They were Chinese made. With a sticker - "QC PASS" [i.e. Quality Control pass]
LOL, the damn connectors right next to it didn't work properly and I had "bend" the connector ever so little to make it work again.
Yes, these were probably assembled by hand too. But, not in a factory originally named with coolest name I have heard in years "Laboratium Wennebostel".
I wonder if that was hand made too, the name.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have recommended the Logitech S220s. I bought a set for my nephews for Christmas for $25 CAD. When I saw how small the box was that they came in I thought that they were going to be crap, but they were surprisingly decent for the price and loud enough to annoy the hell out of my sister.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a very nice 7.1 sound system which cost me close to AU$2000.00 (equivalent to US$0.9 to A$1 at the time) and I will admit that when I play a Blu-ray movie the sound is impressive for everyone who is listening. Unfortunately when I listen to my son's Logitech Z5500 soun
Not monkeys? (Score:2)
Error in summary (Score:4, Informative)
These headphones are not Sennheiser's most expensive headphones to date (not even close, in fact).
Enter the HE90 - also called the Orpheus. It is most likely the most expensive headphone ever produced. It had a very limited product run, and it sells these days for around $15, 000.
Just to give you an idea of what they're like, if I recall correctly the amp has it's own -ignition key- ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it's strange that the summary says that when the same company makes ones ten times the price. And they come with a shiny silver vacuum tube amplifier (I think that's what they are) that would to me kind of defeat half the purpose of having headphones: portability.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ces200211.htm [howstuffworks.com]
I'm hoping at least a few people who bought them are using them just to listen to their low-quality MP3s.
I found this page on making your own vacuum tube amplifiers, for anyone interested i
$1500 headphones (Score:5, Informative)
While I could never justify paying $1500 for headphones, I have to say that I've been consistently impressed with the sound quality from Sennheiser 280-HD headphones. I'm sure there are better headphones to be had, but probably not for anywhere near $80.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As with anything, there's diminishing returns. The more you spend on audio, the better the sound gets (well, assuming you are buying real improvements and not snake oil like wires), but by less and less the more you spend.
For example the difference between $10 headphones and no headphones is, well, everything. It is the difference between sound and no sound. Even cheap is better than nothing. The difference between $50 and $10 headphones isn't everything, but it's still pretty large. It's the sort of thing
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I wouldn't have spent $80 on headphones for myself, someone gave them to me as a gift. Should they ever stop working I'll gladly replace them with something of similar quality and price. Climbing down the price/quality bell curve is always a case of diminishing returns, but for something with the quality/comfort/performance/lifespan of 280-HDs, $80 is a reasonable proposition for many.
Not that that it's desirable on it's own, but we're talking about headphones that are so sensitive that I could hea
Re: (Score:2)
I remeber a time before package managers, before Ubuntu, before wikis. When it was you, a partially working kernel, all the uncompiled source code you could imagine and an encyclopedias worth of READMEs. Yes, it took me 3 goddamn days to compile the ALSA modules and tools and get them to play nice with my kernel on my P1-133 machine.
In case there's someone here that doesn't know... (Score:2, Interesting)
If accuracy across the audio range is of primary importance, headphones will always severely pale compared with a set of reference monitors (a.k.a. speakers) due to their physical limitations. The most I've spent on headphones thus far has been around $300 - I've spent around $600-$700 for four different sets of cans - and I've yet to find headphones that aren't severely flawed. Headphones are a second-choice option, albeit one that comes up a lot in every day life.
Most people, though, don't want accuracy a
I guess I don't know ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there any reason in particular that headphones cannot accurately reproduce sound?
The only thing I can think of that a headphone would have trouble reproducing, is a deep, loud bass. That's only because it doesn't have the displacement to highly compress low frequency. Monitor speakers suffer the same problem though.
Still, because headphones sit right next to the ear, they're _much_ more efficient at delivering sound waves to the ear. This allows them to deliver sound at a comparable volume, with much
Re:I guess I don't know ... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there is a reason, which is that they would sound terrible if they had a flat frequency response and nobody would buy them.
So, why is that: well, the "natural" way we hear sounds isn't "accurate" in the sense that not all frequency transduce with the same efficiency. The sound is modified by the geometry of your head and ears, also called the "head related transfer function" or HRTF for short. The HRTF is direction-dependent, it is also person-dependent as no two people have exactly the same head. Your auditory system understands your HRTF at a subconscious level and "factors it out" in determining the direction of sound and so on (for example sounds at higher elevation tend to have a bias towards higher frequency content created by the ear pinnae).
Now, headphones include a filter that applies a "simulated HRTF" that places the sound approximately directly "in front" of the listener. If they didn't include this, the sound would be very strange.
The downside to this is that the headphones' HRTF isn't individualized to your own head, and it can't be changed, and its exact specification varies from one model to another quite a lot. Usually the companies don't say exactly how the filter is constructed, and it requires some very fancy equipment (like dummy-heads and so on) to measure the headphone response accurately enough to make an inverse filter. The Sennheisser HD580 is one model (no longer in production) that we have some fairly extensive data for, and that is why it is still the standard for most auditory psychophysics research.
Loudspeakers on the other hand (in particular, reference loudspeakers for mastering) are actually designed to have a flat frequency response. Getting a good listening room isn't easy either, but if you work with a measurement microphone it is possible to check the results pretty easily.
On the subject of bass response, the impedance of air in the ear canal when closed off by the headphone is much much lower than the impedance of the driver in open air, which is why phones can deliver a quite good bass response with a very small driver.
Re: (Score:2)
I love my headphones, and I love my speakers, but they are two different beasts, and different moods and styles of music usually dictate my choice of speakers vs headphones, and which speaker or headphone to use.
I have multiple sets of both, and my favorite speakers are a set of Full-range Fostex FE206Es. They are pretty flat [fostexinternational.com], but its more than just the driver that makes a speaker flat.
It might also have to do with the specific amp that I can only use with very efficient speakers. Its amazing how much volum
Re:I guess I don't know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, you are getting that one the wrong way around:
The reason speakers need multiple drivers is because they have to create the sound waves "into infinity", while the headphones only have to create a wave in a small volume of air between the coils and the earsdrums.
A typical rule of thumb is that frequency reproduction of a headphone is about as good as of a speaker 25 times its price.
Re:In case there's someone here that doesn't know. (Score:5, Insightful)
If accuracy across the audio range is of primary importance, headphones will always severely pale compared with a set of reference monitors (a.k.a. speakers) due to their physical limitations.
Loudspeakers have to be placed somewhere.. Usually in a room. The acoustics of the room (echo / reverberation / cancellations) will severely impact the sound of speakers, and there's no way around it without spending thousands on deadening and soundproofing the room. Yes, you can RTA and EQ, and get speakers sounding almost as accurate as cans, but it will never be as tight, unless you have a sonically dead room.
A pair of reference cans, on the other hand, interface with your ears much more accurately, and are not at all affected by room acoustics. If they have flat frequency response on one pair of ears, chances are they will have flat frequency response on most other pairs of ears too.
My work requires me to critically listen to music almost constantly (I write audio algorithms / processors for broadcasting). I normally listen to music on calibrated speakers, but when it's time for extra critical listening, my I put my HD650s on. Speakers are no substitute -- they hide too much, smooth over problems. Reference cans give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (whether you want to hear it or not!).
I currently own a pair of HD650s and they were worth every penny at around $500. Electrostatic cans (STAX brand) would be another step up in accuracy, but comes at a hefty price (cost, fragility, special high-voltage amplifier etc). Until I can audition a pair of HD800s for free, I'll stick with what I have. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many different standards for "accuracy", including "repeatability" and "flat", which are not the same. Headphones are superior to speakers for repeatability, when measured at the ear canal entrance. But they are not "flat" because they include a built-in simulated "free field response" HRTF that modifies the signal (at least, all consumer-market 'phones include this filter), plus some other geometric design issues.
With some work it is possible to get loudspeakers to give a flat response at a fix
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The idea of a flat frequency response on a set of cans is laughable. Even a $27,600 pair of ADAM mastering monitors can't provide a flat frequency response, so don't mislead casual readers into thinking that your HD650s are flat -- here is their "flat" frequency response. [headphone.com]
One of the completely ignored problems with headphones (other than ones I'm sure you've heard before) is that physical positioning (distance and angle) of the speakers relative to the user's ear canal makes a big difference in the sound hea
Re:In case there's someone here that doesn't know. (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, the ultimate irony of audiophiles! They get so distracted by picking out which gear meets their exacting and nuanced specifications that they forget they're listening to shitty music.
Sennheiser HD600 and HeadRoom (Score:3, Informative)
I was fortunate enough to purchase a good set of HD600s and a headphone amp to go with it. I've used them as my primary computer sound system for over a decade now.
I'd describe the Sennheisers as very detailed and precise. I can hear things with them that I have a hard time picking out with my stereo and other cheaper headphones. In addition the soft donut pads make the headphones a joy to wear. I can wear them all day without my ears feeling sore or my head feeling fatigued.
Shameless plug for HeadRoom at www.headphone.com where I purchased my gear. These guys make headphone amps and also spend lots of time testing all sorts of headphones to go with them. They're a wealth of information for anything headphones.
Finally, something to with my $500 HDMI cables! (Score:2)
Audiophile... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, close...
There are some albums that I listen to solely because of their production - like Eric Clapton's Me and Mr. Johnson. None of the songs are that great (compared to some of the other albums he's played on), but the sound that he can get out of a guitar sucks me right in.
It is the Clapton album that sounds the best, and because of it I listen to it at least as much as his others.
I've always liked Sennheiser headphones, BUT.... (Score:2)
I could never tell the difference between their top-of-the-line and midrange/economy models. Maybe I miss out on a musical nirvana, or maybe I just save a lot of money, you be the judge :D
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't necessarily trust what I read from so-called 'audiophiles'. Being an 'audiophile' is a little bit like being a 'photographer'. Just because you took one good picture of your dog doesn't mean you're now an expert on all things photographic. The audiophile world is, IMHO, similar. The only way to *know* what "good" stuff sounds like is to listen to the "good" stuff for yourself. You can read hundreds of reviews that describe 'veiled soundstage', or 'low-oxygen connectors', or 'velvet midrange', etc. But it doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't put it into context. The only way to do it is to listen and decide for yourself!
About a year ago, I decided that I wanted a *good* pair of headphones for my office. I exchanged several emails with the folks at headphone.com about this, and with their blessing I ordered about $1,500 worth of headphones and amps from them, knowing that $1,000+ of it would be returned.
I spent several weeks comparing and contrasting a half-dozen of their 'best' headphones. The result? There is a big difference between $100 cans and $500 cans. Try it for yourself. Some people might not be able to tell the difference. And that's cool, buy the $100 pair and be happy. But just as some people enjoy wine, cars, cigars, cheeses, types of underwear, video cards, {whatever!} more than others is why the market supports so many varieties of, well, everything. And at different price points.
FWIW, I ended up keeping a pair of Sennheiser HD-650's because their sound was simply incredible and they were comfortable for long periods of time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, this is an honest review, but its just not very professional.
In my opinion there isn't a person on earth that would need reproduction that accurate. Seriously 6Hz?
Re: (Score:2)
Look up "infrasound."
-:sigma.SB
Reproduction accuracy (Score:4, Informative)
In audio equipment, reproduction accuracy is all there is.
You personally might be willing to accept distortions of various kinds (we all make our own tradeoffs), but the point in audio design is that the equipment attempts to recreate as faithfully as possible the original sound. The fact that people are willing to accept less than outstanding audio fidelity is analogous to people being willing to eat fast food. Most people being willing to eat fast food doesn't mean that a world-class chef using the finest ingredients doesn't create a fundamentally different gustatory and nutritional experience, or that there aren't people who can discern and appreciate the difference.
In this case, pushing transducer response farther and farther beyond the audible range of hearing improves the linearity of the response within the audible range. The same way that a 192k sampling rate doesn't mean people can hear up to 96kHz, it means that the filter response in the audio band is better, driver response down to 6Hz or up to 50k doesn't mean Sennheiser is suggesting people can hear down or up to those points, but that the response from 20-20k is better.
In the audio work I've done (music recording and film sound), we've worked very hard to achieve the most accurate reproduction possible...because we can hear it.
The best analogy for how that could even be possible is the way one's hearing adapts to quiet. At first, compared to normal environments, a 20dB room seems very quiet, even silent. But spend time in that 20dB room and then move to a 0dB anechoic chamber and that previously quiet 20dB can seem surprisingly noisy. Another visual analogy is the way that some people don't notice compression artifacts in images at first, but see them easily once they know what to look for.
I'm reminded of the early days of HDTV equipment manufacturers trying to convince us (where I was at the time) it was finally possible to use HD for feature film principal photography. Some manufacturer or other had brought in their latest and greatest camera demo reel, where they had shot footage on film and then at some secret point cut over to footage shot on HD. One of the people in the screening room wasn't really a technical person, and quietly asked us (quite reasonably) that if the quality of the images was really so hard to distinguish what they could look for to tell when the images switched from film to HD. Our (only half-joking) answer was "just look for when the film guys start vomiting." :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Frequency Response: 6Hz - 23Hz
I have a friend with some nice BOSE headphones (don't know the model), but they stack up pretty nice against them. The BOSE are nicer, but not by nearly as much as you would think.
I plug these into my Create Zen Vision:W and the sound is VERY nice.
Sidenote: Anyone know where to get a replacement screen for a Create Zen Vision:W?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here. :)
Seriously though, take a look at the past couple of stories posted on the front page. Yeah - this story isn't out of place at all, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the target market here is best described as the "audiophule."
Re: (Score:2)
See picture 5/10
Oops, someone's halo fell down! And how inconvenient -- she's trying to inspect a ring transducer, and doesn't have a spare hand. We would've helped, but, y'know, we were busy and stuff
(That halo is exactly where it should be, you actually want to look through the middle like that)
Re: (Score:2)
While I completely agree with your sentiments, I doubt your 2inch mids would produce 18-20000Hz with a relatively flat response rate.
I could buy an incredible set of monitors and enough foam for a large room with 1500 that would blow these guys out of the water though. I just dont understand the obsession with headphones, especially when they are going to be pumping 160Kbps AAC out of an iPod.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All I want is a 1/8" stereo plug that doesn't start failing after 6 months. There's nothing more annoying that having to diddle the wire near the plug so the sound stops cutting out.
I tried buying an end plug from Radio Shack and getting it to work but I couldn't. It's only 4 wires... yeah I suck.
Tip/Ring/Sleeve.
Tip is left signal. Ring is right signal. Sleeve is common ground.
Expensive headphones use thick, proper cables that don't fail just because you stumble. It might yank the socket right out of your laptop, but at least you'll still have headphones :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, it's "Hangover." As in the sick feeling you'll have the morning after you realize you just blew $1,500 on a pair of goddamn headphones.
Re: (Score:2)