Headphones pros and cons

[duncan5200]

Headphones are extremely subjective about what one person will like and one person won't. I personally like my ATH-M50s despite all the hate they get around these forums they are a solid pair of cans. If you've tried your friends pair of them and liked them who cares if someone else doesn't like em? 

 

I've had my pair of ATH-M50s for damn near 5 years at this point & they've stood up to constant use and abuse. They fold up pretty compact for carrying which is nice because I bring em to work every day & aside from the pleather earpads getting worn out (which is gonna happen, its why they make replacements) they are still as good as the day I bought em.

 

And even if you do somehow manage to break them Audio-Technica has pretty damn good tech support I've found out. I had a friend blow out a driver on his pair after 4 years & I was able to get a replacement driver from Audio-Technica for $25 shipped & do the repair for him. 

Just ordered m50x, cant wait for, thnx for helping.

[ShearMe]

Basically right, but it all depends on how accurate the compensation curve that has been used for all these years is - most are coming around to the fact that it has been dead-wrong (it's obvious really - every set of lines drops to some extent after 1k, even with very treble heavy 'phones). This article is very worth reading - with the new curve from this research - the lines look more like the headphones sound to me.

 

That is interesting, but I think I fail to see the significance for every-day Joes like ourselves. 

[Stefky]

That is interesting, but I think I fail to see the significance for every-day Joes like ourselves. 

 

True enough, it is more for the audio geeks than anyone else.

 

Graphs in themselves don't tell you much about whether you'll like headphones when viewed out of context. But once you've owned a dozen of so pairs and you've got to know which you like and which you don't, you can get a good idea of whether you'll like them by looking at their graphs.

 

That said the THD&Noise graph is universal. Low is good, high is bad. No matter what frequency response you like, that is true.

 

Of course the Olive curve does make the graphs more useful to the non-geeks. 

 

Audio obsessives have got used to looking at a frequency plot and knowing how a headphone will sound - for instance knowing that a suck-out after 1k does not actually mean the treble is attenuated. That doesn't really help laymen. With the new curve, the frequency plot looks much more like headphones actually sound, and its much easier to spot a neutral headphone, a dark one, a bright one, without any prior knowledge of the eccentricities of the old curve.

 

Straight line = neutral, and variations on it are intuitively seen.

 

In general though, I agree, they are more for geeks than anyone else.

[ShearMe]

[snip]

 

When I look at graphs I like to have more than one headphone up, and at least one that I have tried for reference. Adjust the graph all you want for what my ear supposedly hears, but that still doesn't put a picture in my mind of what the thing sounds like. 

 

I just wish the people taking the measurements would hurry up and make up their minds, because it's kind of annoying to not be able to compare measurements between two reviewers.

[Stefky]

When I look at graphs I like to have more than one headphone up, and at least one that I have tried for reference. Adjust the graph all you want for what my ear supposedly hears, but that still doesn't put a picture in my mind of what the thing sounds like. 

 

I just wish the people taking the measurements would hurry up and make up their minds, because it's kind of annoying to not be able to compare measurements between two reviewers.

There is really only one curve anyone uses - the Olive curve was just displayed for a few cans in that article as an example of the difference.

Different places graphs look different because they use different dimensions to their graphs, and are obviously using different measuring kit, which makes a difference. Every places graphs roughly agree though.

Like I said before, once you know what the graphs of a few headphones you love (and a few you hate) look like, it's easy to get a rough idea of whether you'll like a set from the graphs. Not an exact science, but more useful than not having them at all.

[ShearMe]

There is really only one curve anyone uses - the Olive curve was just displayed for a few cans in that article as an example of the difference.

Different places graphs look different because they use different dimensions to their graphs, and are obviously using different measuring kit, which makes a difference. Every places graphs roughly agree though.

Like I said before, once you know what the graphs of a few headphones you love (and a few you hate) look like, it's easy to get a rough idea of whether you'll like a set from the graphs. Not an exact science, but more useful than not having them at all.

 

Yeah, I know it's not an exact science, but I want it to be.  :angry:

[Stefky]

Yeah, I know it's not an exact science, but I want it to be. :angry:

I feel you. The money I have wasted on the endless cycles of headphones over the years.

Going to headphone meets and listening to cans remains the best (if the most geeky) way of working out what you like. But there are always the new models you are tempted to buy before trying...

[Stefky]

Yeah, I know it's not an exact science, but I want it to be.  :angry:

 

I would also add (more for the benefit of others reading as I get the sense you already know this) that understanding what goes where on the frequency range really helps. Tables like this one are a great resource.

 

A lot of people get overly concerned about extension below 60hz - and if you are spending big you should look for full extension to 20hz - but there is very little going on there that will affect your enjoyment of music if it is a few db down. Even decent performance down to 100hz is fine - most bookshelf speakers don't manage much below that and still sound good. 

 

Same goes for the region above 2-4khz. I huge spike up there can make cymbals and applause sound awful, but modest irregularities won't ruin the headphones.

 

So long as the headphones are well behaved between 100hz-2khz most music will sound good, and for people with a constrictive budget (as a lot asking for recommendations here are) they should focus in on that region. Look for a roughly even line between 100-2khz (little variances or subtle swells are OK) and failing huge spikes above 2khz they should be fine for their budget.

 

Below and above will affect some types of music, but for most tracks it is the general character of the sound that changes outside that region.

 

EDIT - And the other really important part is the THD&Noise plot - you REALLY need that to be below 1 above 100hz, and the further below the better. 

[SSL]

A lot of people get overly concerned about extension below 60hz - and if you are spending big you should look for full extension to 20hz - but there is very little going on there that will affect your enjoyment of music if it is a few db down. Even decent performance down to 100hz is fine - most bookshelf speakers don't manage much below that and still sound good.

 

I can agree with 60Hz as a realistic minimum but 100? I would say maybe if you've never heard a live performance and don't care about trying to reproduce one. It's not like it's hard to find reasonably priced headphones with good bass extension.

 

Unless you listen to classical. ha! ha!

[Stefky]

I can agree with 60Hz as a realistic minimum but 100? I would say maybe if you've never heard a live performance and don't care about trying to reproduce one. It's not like it's hard to find reasonably priced headphones with good bass extension.

 

Unless you listen to classical. ha! ha!

 

Yeah, I agree. I was using that as an extreme example, as many well regarded bookshelf speakers and desk monitors start to roll off steeply at 100hz... and I meant bass that starts to roll off at 100hz - not bass that is inaudible at that level - that would be awful!. 

 

People really should look for extension to 60hz at least, I agree, and I personally always look for full extension down to 20hz, and as far up as possible.

 

But if people are on a serious budget, they are better off focussing on distortion levels and then just worry about the key region of the bass and mids - 60hz to 2khz. Not choosing a well performing headphone - like the HD600 or HD650 for example - because they have some sub-bass roll off and choosing something utterly uneven through the mids because it extends down to 20hz is a mistake. They would seldom even notice the sub-bass roll off, but they'll notice coloured mids every day of the week.

[SSL]

Yeah, I agree. I was using that as an extreme example, as many well regarded bookshelf speakers and desk monitors start to roll off steeply at 100hz... and I meant bass that starts to roll off at 100hz - not bass that is inaudible at that level - that would be awful!. 

 

People really should look for extension to 60hz at least, I agree, and I personally always look for full extension down to 20hz, and as far up as possible.

 

But if people are on a serious budget, they are better off focussing on distortion levels and then just worry about the key region of the bass and mids - 60hz to 2khz. Not choosing a well performing headphone - like the HD600 or HD650 for example - because they have some sub-bass roll off and choosing something utterly uneven through the mids because it extends down to 20hz is a mistake. They would seldom even notice the sub-bass roll off, but they'll notice coloured mids every day of the week.

 

Ok I see what you're getting at. Approved.