[brucethemoose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcmarksman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolyMorphist

I don't think there's such thing as 'diminishing returns' when it comes to audio gear. For things like hardware, diminishing returns are easy to identify - you can measure the performance of certain components using 3rd party software (i.e. using the arbitrary units of 3D Mark to judge the performance of a GPU). For audio, either your hearing isn't trained/sensitive enough to apprentice the difference in audio fidelity, or you aren't using the appropriate equipment to support your audio equipment, which is understandable considering the price of investment.

As an example, you can easily tell the difference between a high-end Japanese electro-magnetic pair of headphones (>$5000) and a pair of HD800s ($1000), assuming they were both connected to decent equipment. And it's not a subtle difference, you can clearly make out the increase in audio quality.

There are objective ways to measure audio accuracy (frequency response charts). It's just that contemporary audio enthusiasts mostly don't care. It's basically like if computer enthusiasts based everything off their subjective impression of performance.

I get that it's somewhat subjective since not everyone prefers a neutral sound. However there's a difference between having a personal preference and refusing to acknowledge basic scientific fact. That's why we end up with all this snake oil that takes advantage of psychoaccoustics

Hardware enthusiasts can run benchmarks, but audio enthusiasts would have to get a good (expensive) dummy head and adc, along with a very accurate amp/dac to run "benchmarks". You'd probably want a oscilloscope or oscilloscope software, and a decent understanding of acoustics and signal analysis (which is really hard... take it from a 2nd year EE student

).

It's easier to just write out subjective opinions, and unfortunately the market has grown up around that.

 

[brucethemoose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGovernment

I dunno, I've got a set of HD800's, Alpha Dogs, HiFi Man 600's. as well as a bunch of lower end stuff like senn 600's, BT880's, 701s etc. I think at about $500 you start to get into diminishing returns. I use my Creative ZxR or Burson 160 to drive all of them. It's not really a these sound better or worse, it's just they sound different. It's no different than speakers, speakers d indeed sound different.... amps/wires and all that crap IMO don't and I've got a 50K home theater with all monoprice cables and wire.

I personally don't think there are huge drastic differences in decent quality phones. I get them because I've got friends in the business and can get pretty much anything electronic for pure cost, so I generally pay about half of MRSP.

that being said my Senn HD800's really are the best of the bunch, they just sound great. I've stuck all the phones on my wifes head and she knows nothing about that stuff and picked the hd800's... I asked her why, she said they just sound so natural. I dunno, it's not for everyone. You'll always have people who can't afford stuff that will just put it down regardless and for the most part, most people that hate high end phones haven't tried them, they are full of crap. They just have a set of 701's and think they are the best lol.

701s aren't high end?

I feel so poor

 

[brucethemoose]

My headphone drivers are planear magnetic, and they were ~$100

EDIT:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt

A review by forbes?

+1, Forbes doesn't deserve OCN's traffic IMHO.

EDIT2: As far as I can tell, orthos are pretty dang nice. Mine are amazingly flat and detailed, I notice little things I would never have noticed with my HF5s, my friend's M50s or even some expensive Sennheisers I listened to.