http://en-de.sennheiser.com/orpheus
Why don't you have $55,000 headphones, /g/?
>>51236340
Cuz stax makes a better pair for a fraction of the cost
>>51236340
Memephones if I ever saw a pair.
Can someone show me a more autistic way to waste money?
>>51237139
Mindless pursuit of women.
>how do you want that placebo senpai
>just fuck my mortgage up
>>51237164
>Not finding an Asian qt to be your sugar mama.
Git gud
>>51237164
kek
Audio quality stops after the $50 mark. Everything is just preference beyond that.
>>51236340
>rent recording equipment
>rent anechoic chamber
>hire audio engineer
>have him eq earpods to orpheus frequency response
problem sennheiser?
>>51236340
>aluminium body
>not titanium
For that kind of price, they shouldn't be cheaping out on materials
>wasted 100$ on some sennheiser hd 280s when the headsets i had been buying for 25-50$ were barely any worse
did you ever fall for the "gaming headsets are bad" meme so you could fit in and pretend your sense of hearing is superior to others /g/?
>>51237220
lel you're delusional. it's 200 at the very least.
>using garbage ass drivers that aren't even properly adhered to the frame.
>>51237366
>>using garbage ass drivers that aren't even properly adhered to the frame
Doesn't matter. There is no difference in quality just sound signatures
>>51237390
>inaccurate configuration of the driver seating has no impact on accuracy
>being this delusional
>>51237366
>>51237220
Both wrong. Audio quality stops at however much I spent.
>>51237248
The response of loudspeakers is never linear.
>>51237424
>implying you can hear how "accurate" something is beyond $50 headphones
it is you that is delusional
>>51237451
As it shouldn't be, our ears do not react in a linear fashion across the spectrum. It's more of a shallow hockey stick
>>51237472
>implying friction induced discoloration to the frequency response isn't audible when compared to any decent pair of headphones
>being deluded into thinking it's ok to have shit cans if you can't tell the difference off the bat.
>listening to music the way it was never meant to be.
ripleys believe it or not : the anon born with literal shit taste
>>51237478
You didn't understand me. The response is not linear as in the response is not a linear transformation of the input. You can't model another setup with an eq or any kind of convolution filter.
>>51237528
nice buzzwords but if you really wanted to listen to music "the way it was meant to be" you'd be sitting in front of the musicians in question and have them play for you
stay deluded and keep justifying your waste of money
>>51237570
Stay mad. Stay poor.
>>51237570
>implying listening to music where PA systems distorting live equipment at high volumes is the ideal way to enjoy it
>implying you aren't a pleb for trying to deflect by saying im wasting money
>as opposed to spending money to go to a concert that would just leave your ears damaged unable to enjoy other artists
kek
>>51237570
>implying you can get dead musicians to play for you
ayy lmao desu senpai kek
>>51237610
>implying a classical concert uses PA systems
>>51237431
Okay anon. I have some cable rests made from pure quartz crystal mined in tibet and blessed by the dalai lame himself in order to remove negative rotational velocidensity. I'm willing to sell them to you for only 999.99$! Just post your name, address, SSN and credit card numbet and I will send them to you right away.
>>51237608
It's more likely that you are the one who is poor if you bought placebophones. How do you think I would know the fact that quality caps off at a certain price if I never tried out the "high-end" phones anyways? Stay deluded, mad and poor.
>>51237610
>im wasting money
that's exactly what you're doing though. you're wasting money to get something that isn't there and you're trying to justify it. you're also assuming for no reason that there's some PA system involved when the true way to listen to music is literally just having the instruments play in front of you. Do you cum at the sound of birds chirping outside your house? because that's as natural and accurate as it will get but you (likely) don't because you didn't have $200 to spend on justifying it
>>51237611
Musicians don't matter. Anyone can sing a song or play an instrument with the same audio quality as any of the dead guys did
>>51237746
>Musicians don't matter. Anyone can sing a song or play an instrument with the same audio quality as any of the dead guys did
They can't
>>51237746
you wanted to compare wasting money, i pay once and get solid accuracy, meanwhile you have to pay multiple times for uncertainty. might be a good concert might be a bad one. i'll always get what they had in mind. that's the point.
>>51237746
Please do a Michael Jackson cover and vocaroo it. I had a shitty week and need something to laugh at.
>>51237746
So mad at others because he can't afford anything over ATH-m50's.
>>51237764
if you and beethoven had the same piano and pressed the same key on that piano would make the same sound
>>51237787
> i pay once and get solid accuracy... i'll always get what they had in mind
except my entire argument is that you get the same thing with cheaper headphones over higher headphones. you are LITERALLY trying to justify your spending with differences you can't detect
>>51237793
I'm talking about audio quality not how well a musician can play the piece
>>51237812
actually I work at a headphone store and have the opportunity to test many expensive products so I would say your assumption is invalid
>>51237164
Underrated post.
>>51237879
except you can detect them due to the hardware being made in lower quality. just because the specs of the drivers might be the same doesn't make the end result equal, especially if it's assembled poorly.
it's like saying your fake ass lamborghini from china has the same engine as my real version yet the engine driveshaft is made of plastic. same driving experience right?
>>51237879
being able to test many headphones is meaningless if you haven't sat down and used them individually for longer than a few minutes.
>>51237879
>if you and beethoven had the same piano and pressed the same key on that piano would make the same sound
No
You have never played a piano, right? It's not just about pressing a key, there's a lot of variables in that simple keypress, like how hard it is pressed, how fast, along a plethora of crap
Sony had a project to redo Glenn Gould's variations with a robot, with the same exact timing and exact everything, playing everything the same way as it was recorded back in '58, they almost got it right, but it was still different and the project ended in failure
It grows worse the more complex the music is, with many more musicians involved, and different ways of playing the same piece in the case of works that require a director
>I'm talking about audio quality not how well a musician can play the piece
Even then, it's quite hard to get the same musical instrument as the older musician, specially if said musician enjoyed fucking around with instruments
>>51236340
Sennheiser does make awesome headphones, so it can't be just the usual "audiophile" scam.
>>51237917
>it's like saying your fake ass lamborghini from china has the same engine as my real version yet the engine driveshaft is made of plastic. same driving experience right?
invalid analogy since driving utilizes the sense of touch instead of the sense of sound. sound has a much lower range and limit as to the degree it can be experienced compared to touch.
>>51237936
why would you even assume that I haven't used our products for more than a few minutes if I'm spent 8 hours a day in an environment filled with them? you're basically saying you can't hear the difference until you've used it for a long time akin to "burning-in" the headphone which is also another bullshit phenomenon that doesn't exist as far as our perception of sound through the ears is concerned.
>>51237966
>You have never played a piano, right? Wrong. Not only are you entirely missing my point but you went on a tangent about the tiny variations in keypresses of a piano which, as you said, required the assistance of electronics and robots to properly distinguish which only highlights my point that you can't tell the difference between expensive and relatively cheaper phones
>>51238082
>Wrong. Not only are you entirely missing my point but you went on a tangent about the tiny variations in keypresses of a piano which, as you said, required the assistance of electronics and robots to properly distinguish which only highlights my point that you can't tell the difference between expensive and relatively cheaper phones
Except it doesn't, it's quite easy to distinguish Glenn Gould from the robot, there's a reason the project ended in failure
>>51238098
my whole point is that the audio QUALITY is not compromised regardless of who is playing it. an instrument is something that produces sound. there may be a slight difference in tone to the note played between a robot and glenn gould but the QUALITY is not compromised. If you recorded the sounds of a busy intersection there may be no musical value to it compared to the same micrphone recording a concert, but the audio quality is still the same
>>51238200
There's a difference between the tone played, which affects the perceived quality a lot
There's a reason people prefer musicians able to play the tune right to musicians out of tune
Just like in the old days a lot of wow&flutter would wreck the quality of whatever you were trying to play, nowadays we take pitch for granted on most audio equipment thanks to the digital era
>>51237220
Get out poorfag. Go visit a hifi store and try some headphones.
>>51238248
>There's a difference between the tone played, which affects the perceived quality
which goes back to my original point here >>51237220
It's just preference past a certain price point. Audio quality is not compromised, it's just people preferring a different tone or pitch or whatever they think they want but apparently tons of so called audiophiles tend to gravitate to the higher end headphones not because of the better sound quality they think they hear but the sound signature they paid for simply because they shelled out more money for it
>people arguing about the differences in tone/sound coming out of an instrument
>in regards to the headphone quality
It literally makes no difference, the only thing that matters is how close to the source the headphone outputs, and most $50 cans are in the just-equalize-the-fuck-out-of-me territory.
>>51238369
Sound measurements are well understood, the SNR/THD/FR needed for transparency is mostly well understood
There's perceivable differences between headphones, specially regarding FR
>>51237181
underrated post
>>51237220
Maybe for headphones.
With speakers, I'd say more in the 500-1000 range, then plus 100-200 for an amp to drive that, another 500-1000 for a good subwoofer.
>>51236340
Because I'm not a faggot who obsesses over placebo-tier components designed only to exploit morons and rob them blind.
>>51237164
>tfw no gf
