With all this talk of audiophiles being retards that piss away money on magic, interference dissipating rocks that sit on top of their special Audiophile(TM) cable stands, is spending over $100 on headphones justifiable? Is there any reason to upgrade from my Gaymer Logitech G930s?
On a serious note my 11,000+ song library is all encoded in wav or flac and I feel like my current headphones aren't giving me the full listening experience so help please I'll bump with qts
Audiophile tier is +$1000
<$100 is shit tier
>headphones
Nothing like a good ol' amp driving a set of speaker monitors and a subwoofer.
>>55265281
dude, your ears can't even hear.
$200 is the sweet spot for headphones.
>>55265281
>talking shit about audiophiles
>got scammed into buying overpriced, WIRELESS "7.1 surround sound" shitcans marketed to gamers
wew lad
>>55265281
Yes, there's a certain price range where you definitely get improvements.
The HD600 and HD650 are really great headphones.
>>55265281
SEMEN DEMON
E
M
E
N
D
E
M
O
N
>>55265281
The only thing that will bring a noticeable improvement to your sound is better speakers/headphones.
Everything else is basically snake oil.
Good headphones cost money, $100 is decent enough.
If you want good in-ears, chinese earphones are the best. Xiaomi Airs, Rock zircons, and a few others. Check out the chink shit general wiki page.
The piston 3s were good but they stopped making them and there are only fakes available.
Oh, the prices for these inears are ~$12. They're as good as $200 inears.
>>55265281
JUST
>>55266078
this
just get hd600 and be done with worrying about headphones literally forever
>>55266335
not really true, compare the worst built-in line out on motherboards to any decent DAC & amp and you'll certainly notice a difference (on headphones which aren't absolute shit)
>>55266335
Oh sure ignore:
-audio source (192kbps MP3 vs FLAC is noticeable on a good setup)
-placement (high freqs are very directional, room setup can have big influence)
-DAC (on motherboard+shitty drivers vs USB with clean power supply)
-Amps (audible difference between shitty amp and good one)
No I'm not talking about the goldplated 10k meme HDMI cables. But your speaker drivers are only ONE part of the audio chain. Your audio is only as good as your weakest part in your chain.
Source:
Friend that build his own 4-way speakers and multiple subwoofers. He does blind AB tests to figure out whether he can hear the difference of every upgrade he does.
Note that this is for a trained ear. He's been doing this for a long time but it's NOT placebo at all.
>>55265281
A set of $100+ headphones will definitely make a difference. And if you are going for ones that need an amp, you'll also need an amp.
Honestly though, I spent about 150 on a pair about a year ago and can't see myself upgrading again for a long while. Totally changed listening experience, but after 200 dollars and up its diminishing returns in the quality.
>>55266479
>high freqs are very directional
only EM waves not sound waves...
>DAC (on motherboard+shitty drivers vs USB with clean power supply)
whats that supposed to mean? the DACs used on your mobo surely have enough precision unless your shits older than 10 years. also USB is everything BUT a clean power supply.
anybody paying more than 50 dollars for headphones is retarded. its simply a wire, leading to a magnet, leading to a conical vibrator, encased in more plastic.
Perceived sound quality comes from efficiently isolating the ear from outside noise by clogging your ears with silicone/rubber mixture (buds), or covering your entire ear with some kind of cloth/padding (cans). For noise cancellation, they simply attach a microphone (which essentialy a speaker working in reverse) and they invert the signal to negate outside soundwaves.
Combine that with the utter shit-quality sources you choose to listen to. Video game noises? Youtube playlists? Even if they are recorded LOSSLESS, for example your pirated music is limited by the kinds of microphones used to record the instuments, and the players ability to produce a good sound. None of you cucks study acoustics, or music theory, or spatialization. Not to mention headphones are too small to create large volume bass frequencies you can feel with your body.
What you want is a good large speaker for low freq, and a set of smalls for mids and highs. Tweeters are ridiculous because regular folk haven't developed their musical ear yet, they can't even recognize when a superhigh frequency sounds good or if its just electric whine from their computer. Shit, its probably all just mosquito tones to them. You have to TRAIN your ear to listen well. Musicians exercise aural theory their whole lives to be able dissect sounds, same with artists and their eyes. I digress.
Headphones are a shit. Steal them from bestbuy if anything, and go buy some nice speakers.
>>55266057
Sadly this.
>>55266889
sorry, your post is not valid
and im sure if you put up a picture of what you have, everyone would know you are talking out of your ass
the difference between $500 dollar headphones and $2000 cans verges on diminishing returns, but to say that $50 msrp units are somehow the same as the better brands in the $300-500 dollar range is an indication that you haven't been using proper equipment or your source is low quality
>>55265281
Sure it makes a difference. The problem, as usual, is navigating through piles of bullshit and misinformation. You can get pretty cool headphones for even less than $100, especially second-hand. But don't believe the hype
G930s are fine. If you're not a complete autist the difference is not something you care about after hearing it.
>>55267654
>being this sensory deprived
>>55265281
>On a serious note my 11,000+ song library is all encoded in wav or flac and I feel like my current headphones aren't giving me the full listening experience so help please I'll bump with qts
Unless you actually bought the CDs and ripped them yourself, you're likely going to have transcodes from lossy to lossless.
![snapshot_08.11_[2015.12.23_02.45.23].png](https://i.imgur.com/1wEoh6J.jpg "snapshot_08.11_[2015.12.23_02.45.23].png")
>>55265281
i recently bought bang&olufsen headphones
>>55267822
No, not likely, possible. Spectrograph analysis allows you to tell if you've got a lossy to lossless encode, as well.
>>55267840
Enjoy your ban, avatarfaggot
>>55267798
>being something you dont care about
Yeah, being unable to read in 2016 must make average life hard for you.
I fell for the highend headphones meme and I regret wasting so much money on it when I honestly could use 50dollar headphones and still be content.
I use my wireless g935 everyday now and not my 500dollar ones simply because the simplicity of a attached microphone for skype and similar plus it being wireless is more important to me (and 99% of the public) than the sound being SLIGHTLY more ''clear''.
If youre not an autist audiophile then buy something else. Dont fall for the highend headphones meme.
>>55266446
>>55266078
Opinions on them with digital pianos and DAWs?
>>55267878
Which $500 headphones did you get? And were they Beats.
>>55267822
>what is what.cd
>>55267952
i don't have first hand experience, but they've been go-to monitors in studios for many years. their characteristics are just unparalelled in this price range.
I swear the majority of /g/ doesn't understand a damn thing about audio but like to talk of they do. For some reason the term audiophile is also misused to refer only to the laughing stock of audio enthusiasts who believe more than they hear and spend a house worth of money on a stereo loudspeaker setup in their crappy living room.
>>55265281
Your post OP is about as stupid as the average thread on /g/. You ask others whether something is justifiable, possibly about to ask whether it's worth too or a "meme", as if someone else could answer for it.
Nobody is interested in your audio files or their encoding. Your headphones aren't limiting jack compared to a better pair of headphones(which there are plenty) just because your library is in lossless. And compression artifacts aren't suddenly masked away by a different frequency response which means a poorly encoded file sounds like shit regardless of your gear. These work in a different domain.
There's a thread for headphones and a decent wiki.
>>55268216
>Nobody is interested in your audio files or their encoding.
Actually, I was interested. Audio file quality is the first step in high fidelity, obviously. Right?
Also, what is the giant bug up your ass? He's just asking some opinions.
AnimeNEETs are obsessed with headphones because they are unable to get a proper audio experience (speakers) as they are living with their parents indefinitely.
All audiophile retards spending thousands of dollars on speakers but $0 on acoustics.
Audiophiles have lost sight of the forest for the trees
Any kind of elitism over sensory experience is, without fail, just a circlejerk over the emperor's new clothes
What is the least snakeoil dac amp combo or two units available today?
Jds objective meme seems pretty gud from specs
>neets and dropouts poorfags on /g/ talking about circlejerks and elitism
>>55266842
>only EM waves not sound waves...
That's simply not true. Go listen out of line of your speakers and the higher freqs will suffer worse than the lower ones.
>whats that supposed to mean? the DACs used on your mobo surely have enough precision unless your shits older than 10 years. also USB is everything BUT a clean power supply.
That's why I say WITH a clean power supply so external. Also audio drivers these days are pieces of shit. That alone is enough reason to go with an external DAC.
https://boston.craigslist.org/sob/ele/5646340657.html
$50
https://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/ele/5621091219.html
$150
this combined midrange system would be better than most headphones; the wharfedales are overpriced by about $25 to $40
higher fidelity is not that expensive
![balloon4[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/GmNGRTA.gif "balloon4[1].gif")
As addition to this >>55269996
I found a nice gif to back up my first claim.
>>55266842
So clearly sound-waves are more directional the higher the frequency domain. YOU JUST GOT SCIENCED
>>55266078
>HD600
>not Beyerdynamic DT990 masterrace
>>55270078
DT990s are fun and all purpose but they don't have the flatness of the HD600
>>55268320
>Audio file quality is the first step in high fidelity, obviously. Right?
It's an easy thing to get right to the point the file format is completely transparent. It wouldn't have mattered what format it was really. A high quality audio gear will have the exact same effect on the sound regardless of the source file in use. If the file was so poor it was audibly compressed, it would be noticeable and equally annoying on all gear(aside from absolute low-fi like cheap earbuds, mobile phone speakers, most integrated speakers on monitors, laptops and TVs etc). This isn't a case of one being a "bottleneck". They both(headphones/loudspeakers and the file compression) limit fidelity in a different manner.
An analogy time. Let's say you have a very high quality monitor, exceptional color accuracy and high contrast. You open up a highly compressed image on it. You see how it's compressed, banding and blocky artifacts. This is because the image compressed it below the threshold of transparency for the content and the compression algorithm used. Had someone used a different file format with a different file size, the compression could've been completely unnoticeable even if it was heavily lossy. Now open that same image on a cheap, basic LCD monitor. Color accuracy is terrible contrast is low. You still see the compression. Given how the contrast curve and color accuracy works on this monitor in relation to the compressed image, it might even emphasize the artifacts.
The high quality monitor gave you an accurate rendition of the compressed image. In some cases it might have even been less noticeable on it. The poor monitor altered the image because of its inherent inaccuracy and could've made the compression even more apparent. Image looks different, compression still visible. The only way to achieve fidelity here is to use a calibrated high quality monitor and files which aren't compressed to hell. Same goes for your audio gear and the files you play.
>>55267341
I only agree with your final line. I should have clarified. 50 dollars for plastic, metal and labor, not MSRP. Buy used or fuck, make your own. It's dead simple to DIY a fucking speaker. Especially with the internet.
If you think any type of electronic with a high price tag is justifiable, you're retarded. The parts are cheap and usually it only takes a few guys to program a robotic assembly line ONCE, they press a button and the shit is cranked out. Why would I pay 2000? 500? Even 100 for their minimal effort. Technology pricing is one of the biggest scams around today, along with homeowning, the automotive industry, and almost anything targeted at end-consumers with such a wide range of prices.
FYI, I don't use headphones anymore since I kept losing them on bumpy travels. I have old logitech z2300(i think thats their name) sub and speaks or something from like 2006. I believe they were 150 bucks. Like any other speakers, they are able to produce sounds clearly and consistently with no gaps from 20hz to 20khz. Its probably not your speakers limiting your sound in the 21st century. Its most likely your source, speaker PLACEMENT, or your ear. Speaker design and quality havent advanced much since the digital age (even guitar amps still use the same shit since the 60s), other than adding bells and whistles. In fact, some would argue that speakers go underused since nobody seems to use analog sound to get round waves anymore, they all use digital amps producing synthesized waves.
>>55268429
Yet again this shit. No, an audiophile is someone who is enthusiastic about audio. It's not a synonym to a retard who lost sight of what matters in audio quality or can't prioritize spending. Fidelity isn't about price either.
>>55268552
For headphones? Your on-board. But O2+ODAC is very good if you need something more or just want to be sure.
>>55266479
Define those limits and you might be right.
>>55266842
>only EM waves not sound waves...
No. Radiation pattern gets more and more narrow as the frequency goes up. Directivity is one of the most important aspects of loudspeaker design and placement.
>whats that supposed to mean?
Fairly sure that's referring to compromised designs with audible noise or EMI. Indeed basically any half decent DAC starting from on-board codecs and mobile phones nowadays have enough precision for something as simple as audible frequency domain.
>>55265281
Are you plugging aforementioned $100 headphones into a samsung galaxy S3 or a $1500 amp?
>>55270652
>Define those limits and you might be right.
What limits do you mean? Price limits?
>>55270807
Are you implying there would be a difference? If so is one of them better? Audibly better or different? Which, how? What is a 1500 dollar amplifier anyway? Price tag isn't a quality worth knowing.
>>55265308
cute af
>>55270859
Diminishing returns.
If you mock audiophiles who spend huge cash for miniscule or nonexistance performance gain, why would you spend more than a hundred bucks for your shitty phone's output?
>>55270841
"Shitty amp" or a DAC which isn't performing well enough to be transparent.
192 kpbs mp3 used to encode human speech like an audio book would likely be impossible to tell apart from a lossless file of the same thing. Same bitrate, same codec but with full band stereo music things might be different. The quantizer most definitely can fail audibly here but it's dependent on the content being played back. Not to mention the encoder used. mp3 has changed a lot over the years.
>>55267822
OP here, I literally did this. My father was a huge music guy, and I now have his entire CD collection
>>55271101
OP here again, mend me sets or anything. I simply would like to know how Sennheiser HD598s compare to Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pros and if $200 really is the sweet spot for headphones
>>55268429
99% of people can have all the acoustic control they need just by having a good reciever.
I tend to think baffling my walls and worrying about the placement of my lights and chairs is autism tier.
>>55271101
show us the .log files
>>55270859
Not even high end but many midrange or lower mid headphones cannot be properly powered by a low impedence designed phone jack.
>>55271207
Mate they are literally all ripped to wav directly from a few thousand CDs I don't think they're anything less than what I'm saying they are
>>55271225
>a low impedence designed phone jack.
The what?
>>55271233
>spends hours ripping thousands of CDs to ensure perfect quality
>don't know shit about ripping
hilarious
>>55265281
I can hear the difference between copper,aluminium,zinc,tungsten,silver and molybdenum speaker wires
debate me
you will lose
>>55271246
The integrated DAC on most phones cant really handle sending power to headphones that operate on more than 30-40 ohms. When using a higher-than-cheap-chinkshit impedence headphone this causes a drop in fidelity and potential volume.
>>55271322
You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what impedance is in the first place.
>>55271257
Enlighten me then m8, how would me showing you the .log files matter for the purpose of this thread you fucking mong
>>55271345
Please oh wise master explain to me how speaker resistance and power requirement works.
>>55271379
To start with the basics...
DAC doesn't directly power anything. Integrated audio codecs in consumer electronics generally have a DAC and a headphone amplifier so you can actually plug something into them and hear a sound. Amp is built in.
Power draw gets higher when the load impedance(headphones, loudspeakers) gets lower. Power draw is not sensitivity. Voltage sensitivity is the spec to know for basic power requirement. It also defines FR.
Impedance is merely the resistance to current but it doesn't tell you anything about how much current is required for a headphone/loudspeaker to get loud enough. Impedance is generally expressed as a single number, the nominal impedance of a headphone which tells nothing of value. Impedance function in relation to the output impedance is important as it can shift frequency response. Pic related is how impedance function looks like on Shure SE535 which utilizes three different transducers. That plot is the sum of the impedance of each.
High impedance often goes hand in hand with low voltage sensitivity but this is a generalization. A high impedance headphone with usually low voltage sensitivity will simply be quiet from electronics with lacking output power that's all. It doesn't have any bearing with fidelity.
Real world example, Beyer T1 with its nominal 600 Ohm impedance vs 60 Ohm K702 have near identical voltage sensitivity meaning both will get equally loud from the same device. However as the K702 has lower impedance and thus higher power draw, it's much more likely to actually cause the amplifier to clip and will make the amplifier distort more due to higher power draw. 50 Ohm HE-6 is a good example of the extreme with much lower voltage sensitivity and higher power draw than either of the aforementioned.
High power draw or high Zout vs varying Zload can have an effect on fidelity. Power draw causes distortion and potential clipping and the relation of source impedance and load impedance function alters FR.
>>55266479
>clean power supply
What the fuck is dirty power
>>55266842
>only EM waves not sound waves...
Nigger the most basic shit in home speaker setup is to know that high pitch sounds are directional and reflect off surfaces, and low pitch sounds behave as pressure.
Anyone have a good beginner recommendation for headphones? Never owned a pair.
Prefer to not spend over $100.
>>55271362
A log file is a text file with the file extension “.log”. Like its name suggests, it acts as a log of the entire ripping process and it records any errors that may have occurred.
Log files are a way of showing rip settings, history of the process and further actions like submitting to the AccurateRip database the ripping accuracy or checking against it for error correcting.
EAC at the end of the ripping process encodes the textual contents to a unique checksum, a string of alphanumerics, as a form of validation to the bottom of the log. The checksum is used in reverse to decode against EAC's proprietary algorithm to output the contents of the log. Therefore if the log is edited and is tested, the log generated from the checksum will not output the same log and the integrity fails.
This is what the CheckLog.exe program that comes with EAC is for.
>>55271790
You spent three paragraphs agreeing with me after saying I dont know how it works.
>high impedance headphones will be [lower volume on lower power devices]
Glad we agree. I also said that low power audio sources like most phones people have cannot drive high ohm cans.
But you also ironically can't understand how the impedance spectrum affects fidelity with respect to the output devices power handling (which itself is related to the impedance design point)
Too bad audio "engineers" can talk all day about DACs but cant actually design a driver to save their lives.
>>55266381
>Oh, the prices for these inears are ~$12. They're as good as $200 inears.
Sounds like someone who has never had $200 inears
>>55271798
http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html
Just because you have a 5 grand headset, it doesn't mean you can HEAR the difference. Most users of such headsets also have a setup + FLAC files and they're trained to hear them.
Hard to explain, but its just a waste of money if you can't "hear".
>>55266057
I'm alright with losing higher end frequencies if it means I can wander around in my apartment, or crawl into bed, or just generally not have to be chained to my PC.
Imagine if every single video card discussion degraded into "IF YOU'RE NOT USING AN OC 1080 SLI SETUP WITH THREE 4K 144hz IPS MONITORS THEN YOU'RE A RETARD!"
That's you. You're "that guy".
>falling for an actual /g/ meme
If you really don't think there's a difference between a pair of $15 headphones and a pair of $350 headphones, you're an idiot.
The whole "audiophool" thing is a false dichotomy. You have your idiots who spend thousands on cable lifts and cables, and you also have people who think there's literally no difference between dollar store Bluetooth speakers and $1000+ floor standers.
There's actual good hardware between the extremes, but diminishing gains is real. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but here's my take:
>A very good DAC can be had for $80. Spending over $150 is a waste.
>A very good amplifier can be had for $250. Spending over $500 is a waste.
>In my opinion, the most bang for buck is to just get a receiver (Yamaha or Denon) for $250-300. They have DACs, speaker amplification, headphone amplification, automatic parametric EQ to flatten frequency response better than your ears can, and tons of inputs. I disagree that the DACs or any other component is bad, they sound great.
>Over $400 on headphones is a waste, my favorite headphones run at $200.
>Over $1000 on a pair of speakers is a waste unless you get floor standers, in which case you can spend a bit more if you really wanted to.
>>55273250
>The whole "audiophool" thing is a false dichotomy.
Pretty spot on kind anon.
What DAC do you use if I may ask?
>>55273250
>Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but here's my take:
>>In my opinion
so that's like your opinion squared
>>55271798
Since you're working with analogue singals starting from the DAC this actually matters. USB power is notorious for being dirty. That is not the steady current/voltage you want but some fluctuations this can influence the output signal your DAC gives and when amplified might actually sound off. On motherboard DACs might also experience unwanted static or induction from other nearby components. This is not really significant enough to disturb digital processing but analogue processing on the other hand...
>>55265281
So far my "reasonable" range is $100 - 300. You'll notice a difference with quality products, however price does not scale with quality. There are $150 headphones that beat $300 headphones, and there are $300 headphones that $150's couldn't touch.
I'd say the max you should spend on a pair of headphones is $500, and that's really probably past the ROI, honestly. $500 is where if you have the money, and really like listening to music and shit, sure go for it. Anything higher is only getting more ridiculous.
Also how you drive your headphones *does* make a difference. Most of it is preference, and it's harder to put a value on things like DACs or AMPS that are reasonable but I think the $100 - 300/500 range is still appropriate for that as well.
>>55266842
>DACs used on your mobo surely have enough precision
Ehh, it depends, really. Sometimes they can be fine, sometimes they can be shit, but it can pretty easily be solved with $50 if you get a shit one.
>>55270000
Some people leave their house sometimes
dude you wear headphones on your head. they make contact with both your ears. I think its justifiable to spend over $100 on electronics that mount to your head using tension. even if sound was exactly the same a $10 headphones, if they are more comfortable than that alone would be worth it.
Audiophile retard tier starts at a 10X higher price bracket than OP thinks it does. $100 for headphones is just about the least you can spend on headphones with studio reference quality frequency distrobution.
Lol I suggest you learn to play an instrument so you can objectively compare speakers. its hard to tell with pre-recorded music but when the midrange of your personal instrument doesn't sound right its fucking blatantly obvious
my earpods can play 320kbps
earpods are like $10
>>55274138
this. with 50$ earplugs you can have 300$ headphone sound quality.
You are better off spending the money elsewhere on you audio setup.
>>55273021
>Imagine if every single video card discussion degraded into "IF YOU'RE NOT USING AN OC 1080 SLI SETUP WITH THREE 4K 144hz IPS MONITORS THEN YOU'RE A RETARD!"
But his argument is that you paid a lot of money for shitty cans instead of not a lot for much better cans. So this counter about massive spending on GFX cards is not a good counter.
The wireless convenience part you said, sure.
