>$2999
seriously, are any headphones worth that much?
>being this poor
>>52574984
If you want good music invest in headphones ;)
>>52574984
Are any watches worth even $1000?
Are any Versace's worth $2000?
Are any speaker systems worth $10'000?
Are any cars worth $2 million?
>>52575005
I don't understand, why does it still look so flimsy?
Do they just not change anything at all about their build standards past 500$ range?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Will_You_Marry%3F
no
>>52575051
so no then
>>52574984
No. Only a retard would pay that much for a headphone.
>>52574984
if you're a retard with too much money, sure why not? but notice that anyone with a background in engineering and/or marketing will have nothing but contempt for so called "audiophiles".
>>52575082
>>52574984
Btw design sucks ...
>>52575102
>"audiophiles"
These people are literally like children. Remember how when we were kids we saw an ad on TV and just HAD to have whatever bullshit product they were advertising? Same thing with "audiophiles".
>>52574984
orpheus
>$2999 + $37001
>>52574984
$6000 dollars would be a more appropriate price.
>>52575130
>+$10k
>>52575065
it's made of marble how could it be flimsy
>>52574984
Put plainly, no. A lot of the "features" advertised are downright stupid, such as frequencies not only above human hearing but above cat and dog hearing. Worry about seeing x-rays, then come back.
Seriously though, having owned electrostatics as well as cheaper $80-100 Sennheisers and some stuff inbetween, the quality depends more on how you like the coloration of the headphones and less on the actual objective "quality", simply because there isn't anywhere else to go. You don't want to go too cheap, but you shouldn't be surprised if you find $100 headphones better sounding than $500+ headphones if you're truly honest with yourself. Anything approximately in the range of good is going to sound better than $5-20 generic crap, but from there on it's all preference.
These two things are what really make a difference:
>dirt cheap throwaway product vs anything decent, as mentioned above, and
>form factor
Speakers > Headphones > IEMs in that regard.
Imagine this OP
You're a famous musician and you make millions every year. Would you think twice about buying these headphones?
>>52574984
The closer any headphone gets to the price of Stax SR009's, the less sense it makes to buy them over the Stax. 009's are around $3,500 and another $1,200 for the amp needed to make them work.
>>52574984
No. Ive listened to $1000+ headphones, still my all time favorites are the HD650 for less than $300
>>52574984
No
>>52574984
No because there are no good options for these prices. Shitty products with ridiculous price tags. You get better for cheaper. If there were gains in sound quality to be had one could argue that they are woth it. In the case of HE-1000, just hell no.
>>52575065
I think those look anything but flimsy. They want to keep the weight down for comfort reasons of course so the design is not bulky.
>>52575051
>Are any watches worth even $1000?
Yes. This is really not that much for a watch. You see those daily on normal people.
>Are any Versace's worth $2000?
No, unless it's some collectors piece with a lot of value already.
>Are any speaker systems worth $10'000?
Yes. There are legitimate places where you'll have to dish out that much for a set of speakers if you don't want to compromise quality like for studios or if you just want a really high fidelity system for yourself. Better avoid all the audiophile marketed crap there tho, otherwise you'll be just wasting money.
>Are any cars worth $2 million?
I'll admit if I were filthy rich I'd pay that much for a few pieces.
>>52575236
>Put plainly, no. A lot of the "features" advertised are downright stupid, such as frequencies not only above human hearing but above cat and dog hearing.
They are stupid partly because of that but mostly because that's not at all what those headphones are capable of.
>>52575289
"no"
>>52575149
Marble is an extremely soft stone, which is why it's preferred by sculptors. It's also very porous and stains easily, so you need to keep it clean.
>>52575303
what the fucks wrong with him?
>>52575321
He's in pain over terrible headphones.
>>52575256
Yes because every single musician uses either Beats or whatever generic crap their studio just gave to them.
>>52575303
is he cumming?
>>52575303
there are people who legitimately buys what ever this faggot says
>>52575321
he is crying from the audiophile nirvana he has reached
>>52575130
I actually really want those. They're fucking beautiful.
no they are made by master NEETs that have out-NEET'd you and sold you hipster garbage that is actually shit
>>52575446
It's the exact opposite you frumpy memester.
He's cringing because the high notes are overly harsh.
>>52575303
>60 year old idiotphile who lost hearing of the highest frequencies pretending to be immerged by good sound dot webm
>>52575236
>You don't want to go too cheap, but you shouldn't be surprised if you find $100 headphones better sounding than $500+ headphones if you're truly honest with yourself. Anything approximately in the range of good is going to sound better than $5-20 generic crap, but from there on it's all preference.
Maybe if you output it through your laptop speakers. Most 500$ phones can't even be driven by shit/integrated amps. Low tier headphones sacrifice quality for low impendance.
Saying you'll find 100$ headphones on the same level of quality as 500$ (except in rare cases where the latter is really trash, like Beats) is about as ridiculous as saying you can find a 100$ graphics cards that is better than a 500$ one.
>>52575311
So, you have easily justified watches, shoes, speakers and cars, but you can't justify the headphones?
-No mechanical watch is worth $1000. You can buy Chinese replicas, even of automatics, for $10, that perform the main function of a watch (to tell the time accurately) properly. What you are paying for is branding, workmanship, complications, choice of materials and possibly jewellery. Normal people don't wear $1000 watches: they use smartphones, or they have a $50 Swatch which does the job perfectly well. Of course, if you're obnoxious you could spend $100'000- $1 million on a Hublot, Vacheron Constantin, Ulysse Nardin, etc.
-Just like the Versace shoes that someone considers a collector's piece, headphones can be collector items, just like the original Orpheii were. Electronics age badly, you say? So does leather.
-I will put it to you that for personal use, you will never need to spend $10'000 on a speaker system. Yes, you need high-fidelity speakers if you work in a studio and need accurate sound representation, but the same goes for buying $100-$200 reference headphones. Those speakers aren't going to cost you $10 grand.
-So if you were filthy rich you would have no qualms spending the equivalent of a villa for a sports car, but you still couldn't justify overpriced headphones?
>>52575725
You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>52575773
>So, you have easily justified watches, shoes, speakers and cars, but you can't justify the headphones?
I were a billionaire with no concept of value, I'd still not pay the 3k for HE-1000 for my personal listening equipment. It has nothing to do with the price at this point, just the fact that you can get better equipment. And for the majority of us who actually have to worry about speding money on nice things, you can get better equipment for less money than almost all of these ridiculously expensive headphones/audio gear generally labeled as "audiophile".
best $11 ever spent on headphones
>>52575303
Those headphones he's wearing are like $2000. He says they are the worst in that price range, or something like that. I have no reason not to believe that but jesus christ, he couldn't be more pretentious if he tried.
>>52575820
>better equipment for less money
What about spending $100-200 for custom ear pads that perfectly fit your head and ears? Heck, add 3 or 4 variants, providing different levels of noise isolation while you're at it.
Or you can get custom molded IEMs for $1000. You can still get better with more money.
>>52575843
These are coming in the mail any day now ;))))
>>52575884
You can get custom molds+IEMs to match for a lot cheaper than $1K, but this is all beyond the point. Yes, you can accessorize for more money, but the point was that more expensive products aren't necessarily higher quality beyond a certain point.
>>52574984
The most expensive bits of listening gear I saw at a recording studio were HD800 headphones and B&W 800 series speakers, which were only used for mastering, the actual recording/mixing gear was much cheaper. Chances are the music you're listening to wasn't even made on gear as good as what some of these audiofools are buying.
>>52575884
>What about spending $100-200 for custom ear pads that perfectly fit your head and ears?
Custom earpads are rather pointless. Many large enough pads offer near perfect seal around your ears. Earpads have an effect on the frequency response, too so just getting comfy pads could actually lower fidelity.
>Heck, add 3 or 4 variants, providing different levels of noise isolation while you're at it.
Isolation might or might not be preferred. Not what you want from open headphones. Pads alone don't have a large effect on it.
>Or you can get custom molded IEMs for $1000
You get a good fit with those and you don't need to pay out the ass for them either. That said cIEMs have their own set of problems and most cIEMs are awful in terms of performance. Also deep and tight fit ear-canal phones are kind of annoying when you talk or open your mouth. Not a perfect solution or inherently better to an universal fit.
>>52575868
>he couldn't be more pretentious if he tried.
It's a joke.
>>52576005
>HD800 headphones and B&W 800 series speakers
Given how colored HD 800 is and most B&W 800-series are, I don't get why would anyone want to master with those.
>>52576455
>Given how colored HD 800 is and most B&W 800-series are, I don't get why would anyone want to master with those.
Beats the fuck outta me, but I saw what I saw. They seemed pretty well in demand as well, since they always had artists coming in on their floor, so my take away is not to fix what's not broken even if it doesn't seem to make sense. I certainly don't know as much about audio as the producer and engineer there did, so I'm not one to question.
>>52575532
He can't hear high tones anymore.
He's too old.
>>52575082
the ramsey is an audiofag?
>>52576695
He's certainly stupid enough to be one.
>>52575303
Link to the YouTube vid?
>>52576793
https://youtu.be/L34S4Tt1EuQ
>>52574984
No, because every headphone above 400$ is placebo.
Any among got opinions on the dt 990 better dynamic 600ohm? I was surprised my iPhone could even drive it. I thought it was a decent buy but was wondering if I could have gotten better for the price
>>52575725
> implying that low impedance is a bad thing
>>52576897
That's wrong and makes no sense.
>>52576900
I you like midbass and piercing treble, those are the right fit for you.
Audiophilia = wine tasting
Beyond "functional", diminishing returns mean value per dollar immediately falls of a cliff.
Take cars, for example. You could probably find a$2000 used car that does everything a car needs to do.
After that, what are you paying for, exactly? And how much are you paying for it?
>>52574984
Can I use the left side to grill my steak?
>>52577005
this
Just drink a $5 bottle of wine and all audio sounds good
>>52574984
That is on the market right now? Not many.
Certainly not that one. HE1000 is a cheap piece of shit.
https://imgur.com/a/DsWJM#C4GLPgu
>>52575680
>>52576635
Examples of posters that do not understand hearing loss.
>>52575725
Impedance has no relation to quality here.
>>52576455
>just getting comfy pads could actually lower fidelity.
That's not quite how that works.
>>52577005
Wine tasters actually go through training and blind tests. Contrast to audiophiles.
>>52576005
>Chances are the music you're listening to wasn't even made on gear as good as what some of these audiofools are buying.
Pro audio treats audiophilia as a joke. Audiophiles spend too much time dicking around with pointless tweaks, some which degrade fidelity.
>>52577094
>That's not quite how that works.
Was there something wrong? Because earpads quite often audibly shift frequency response for better or worse.
>>52577094
>do not understand hearing loss.
It's not even controversial: as people get older, they lose hearing acuity in the higher frequencies. As to whether this has a sizeable impact on the sound of most music is another question.
>>52574984
2999 in Yen, then yes
>>52577144
>Because earpads quite often audibly shift frequency response
They can. But they don't always make that much of difference, and that doesn't get into why there would be difference.
The shaped pads would hopefully minimize leak, bringing the headphone that much closer to driving a ideal pressure chamber, with improved stability of low frequency extension.
Pad material, besides affecting leak, has some effect on internal reflections in that lossy pads reduce treble artifacts slightly. Angling of pads or at the driver also helps to keep the driver aimed at the ear, keeping the upper range more stable.
>>52577145
>It's not even controversial:
That doesn't mean you understand it.
As you age, there is a general loss of threshold sensitivity, a loss in middle ear compression, and a more focused loss in the top octave, above 10 kHz.
Headphone issues pile up in the 5-10kHz range, not much above. This is the case with ED10. Distinguishing characteristics of music are limited above 10-13kHz. An effect on transient character mostly, not that audiophiles seem to understand what a transient is.
>>52575051
No, there really aren't. Except for cars, the expensive ones actually function considerably better.
>>52575082
That nigger trying to steal his music right from his ears
>>52574984
>seriously, are any headphones worth that much?
Of course anon.
They probably cost 12 dollars in parts tho.
>>52575051
What's a "Versace"?
>>52577408
Lmao
>>52575082
>3 grand
That leather better be made from the scrotum of a wooly mammoth and the circuitry be made of pure gold and platinum
>>52577636
dank
>>52575082
Is it bad that I've met with and talked with the guy on the right before, and probably will meet him in a few months?
>>52575773
I think the idea there is that precious stones used in bearings and whatnot are orders of magnitude more durable than whatever chinks use in theirs.
But everyone will sooner lose or break the watch by accident than it would ever fail due to low quality, even bootleg flea market ones.
>>52575303
>He did that to be funny in the video
>Autists don't understand humour
Business as usual, nothing to see here.
>>52577636
ebin
top metal part looks byond retarded
>>52575303
This is who you're trying to impress when you brag about your autistic sound equipment.
>>52577094
>Wine tasters actually go through training and blind tests.
Yeah and those blind tests show that wine tasters are consistently unable to replicate their results. In other words, it's a load of bullshit.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545786
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545596
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545711
>>52577395
Compare the performance values and prices of the Bugatti Veyron with the Nissan GTR. Don't forget to consider that it is incredibly difficult to find a place where you could max out the speed of your Veyron.
>>52575289
refined shilling
>>52576976
>That's wrong and makes no sense.
If spending 2000$ on a singular headphone is enough to make you believe that it must be better than a headphone costing 10 times less, it's still fine to me.
>>52578714
>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8545711
>An Examination of Judge Reliability at a major U.S. Wine Competition
Some of them are consistent, which is more than what can be said for audio. But enough about wines, if you'd like, I can dredge up the relevant audio statistics for you.
>>52574984
Maybe.
But certainly not these.
>>52579313
>Some of them are consistent, which is more than what can be said for audio.
Fair enough, but it's still mostly a sham.
>>52575303
It's a joke you dumbasses
>>52579625
And yet it's funnier when you take it seriously.
>>52577636
You forgot it's YouTube ripped by youtubemp3download.net
>>52574984
To be honest I'd like to give them a try.
>>52578465
Wow. Nice hair Mr. Tyler.
if people listen to shitty mixed music, your sound doesn't actually get that much better if you buy better cans
>>52575236
> not purchasing a $3000 headphone for your pet(s)
>>52582002
>uses the 'biz' lingo
I disagree.
