[julian67]

The above statement shows you have actually not even read this thread......
Your posts somehow only show your suspect for those who have more than you?

1: Actually I have read the thread. The fundamental problem with it is that the supposed observation is in fact only an unsubstantiated conflation of opinion and assumption.

2: I'm reasonably content with the stuff I have but if I lived somewhere quieter I would be more interested in high quality open backed headphones, and would almost certainly spend quite heavily on them and perhaps on superior source and amplification. Because I live somewhere with substantial extraneous noise (except for the odd winter when it snows so heavily that vehicles can't be used for a few days) I content myself with my Sennheiser Momentum circumaurals and various IEMs. Sorry to be apparently navel-gazing but this goes to the heart of the hugely biased and unsubstantiated premise of your original post, quote: ".....discount the performance of superior models".

You can ascribe the above view to envy if you like, or you could attempt to address the points made (and not just by me!) which describe how this thread is very badly flawed in being presented as some kind of rational or scientific exercise.

There are, for many people, good reasons for not buying the "superior" models and acting on those reasons does not necessarily mean that the person is "discounting" supposedly better alternatives. Here are some examples:

The superiority of "superior models" doesn't matter if that superiority cannot be discerned in the listener's particular environment.

The financial cost of that extra "superior" experience may be very, very large compared to differences in sound that the listeners perceives as small or marginal or even non-existent.

Depending on the source and amplification available, the "superior models" may even be completely unsuitable and in situ actually sound worse than their "inferior" cousins.

The "superior" models may be less comfortable, have shorter warranty, very distant service centres, more expensive parts, poorer reputation for build/component quality, poorer aftermarket support (i.e. cables with proprietary fittings and so on) etc etc. All of this is possible and hardly unheard of.

I think any reasonable person can see that there are numerous circumstances and reasons why the "superior" product is not always the most appropriate and that there are plenty of common situations where it may not even provide a better sound or better comfort.

An unusual theme here at Head-Fi would ask the question "How and why does the general public prefer a non-audiophile sound signature delivered by Beats by Dre?"

Another question simply loaded with assumptions. Everyone who buys Beats buys them because they made a conscious decision about their preference of a "sound signature"? I refer my learned friend to a previous reference to the product of the broader end of a horse.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I'd assert that the market doesn't give a flying fruck about sound quality; witness the millions who listened to distortion-laden Black Eyed Peas MP3 though Apple ear buds and did not complain. Beats sell because of their street cred, not their sound. Early CDs that sounded like polished chrome sold well. Only audiophiles complained. No one cares (on an aggregate scale).

So you think as a record producer, Dre didn't try to produce headphones which have the popular sound he placed in his mixes?

Of course we can say that the lack of dynamic range in today's recording reflect the compression from the attempt to make the files as loud as possible. Still I feel there is an angle to how the Beats sound. I also feel audiophile makers have taken notice, not to say they are emulating it exactly.

The Sony audiophile sound is different from the old Sony sound. I'm sure they do marketing tests and try to understand what the public wants. Unfortunately a flat response is not the goal here.

I assume years of subwoofers in cars and giant subwoofers in home cinema along with late night dance club exposure has trained the listening public to want booming bass. Just an assumption on my part.

 

[Shaffer]

So you think as a record producer, Dre didn't try to produce headphones which have the popular sound he placed in his mixes?

Absolutely not; this isn't exactly a secret. Run a quick Google search for the Beats/Monster story. It's fascinating.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Absolutely not; this isn't exactly a secret. Run a quick Google search for the Beats/Monster story. It's fascinating.

You are right. Kevin Lee put a set of headphones on Dr Dre and he green lighted the sound. I stand corrected. Maybe the same story as AKG Q701 series?

 

[Redcarmoose]

You can ascribe the above view to envy if you like, or you could attempt to address the points made (and not just by me!) which describe how this thread is very badly flawed in being presented as some kind of rational or scientific exercise.

There are, for many people, good reasons for not buying the "superior" models and acting on those reasons does not necessarily mean that the person is "discounting" supposedly better alternatives. Here are some examples:

The superiority of "superior models" doesn't matter if that superiority cannot be discerned in the listener's particular environment.

The financial cost of that extra "superior" experience may be very, very large compared to differences in sound that the listeners perceives as small or marginal or even non-existent.

Depending on the source and amplification available, the "superior models" may even be completely unsuitable and in situ actually sound worse than their "inferior" cousins.

The "superior" models may be less comfortable, have shorter warranty, very distant service centres, more expensive parts, poorer reputation for build/component quality, poorer aftermarket support (i.e. cables with proprietary fittings and so on) etc etc. All of this is possible and hardly unheard of.

I think any reasonable person can see that there are numerous circumstances and reasons why the "superior" product is not always the most appropriate and that there are plenty of common situations where it may not even provide a better sound or better comfort.
Another question simply loaded with assumptions. Everyone who buys Beats buys them because they made a conscious decision about their preference of a "sound signature"? I refer my learned friend to a previous reference to the product of the broader end of a horse.

But you answered the flawed question. Still you feel the public would choose a standard measured and accepted audiophile headphone if they heard it first?

 

[julian67]

But you answered the flawed question. Still you feel the public would choose a standard measured and accepted audiophile headphone if they heard it first?

Given unlimited funds, suitable hardware source (at no extra cost), suitable amplification (supplied at no extra cost, either monetary or convenience), very high quality source material (i.e. lossless files or high bitrate aac instead of medium bitrate mp3/ogg ((amazon/spotify))) at no extra cost, pleasing ergonomics, pleasingly acceptable appearance, exceptional reputation, massive promotion and endorsement?

Probably.

edit: if it had sum extraah badass bassssss hahahahahaha

 

[castleofargh]

I'd assert that the market doesn't give a flying fruck about sound quality; witness the millions who listened to distortion-laden Black Eyed Peas MP3 though Apple ear buds and did not complain. Beats sell because of their street cred, not their sound. Early CDs that sounded like polished chrome sold well. Only audiophiles complained. No one cares (on an aggregate scale).

black eyed peas, the music for your car with a loud engine and windows down, but not for your headphone. they're my reference for mastery in clipping. most metallica for superb dynamic

. and of course radioactive by imagine dragons for most "What guys?".
all of them being amazingly popular all over the planet. I think that goes to show that people don't even notice. the kind of stuff that will make me bust a move in the shower when played in mono on the waterproof radio with over9000 reverb from the bathroom. but on my headphone

.

 

[vid]

 
I'm a big fan of the of the Try It Before You Buy It  mantra. If anti-hype makes me anti-analysis so be it. Case in point.. Dr Dre set out to create professional-grade headphones for the everyone, claiming that “People aren’t hearing all the music.”
 
The reality is that Beats by Dre is much better at marketing than sound quality
 
The scientific models I mentioned in my prior post can confirm this reality. Thing is that those scientific models are not necessary to evaluate the sound quality of Beats by Dre, lots of ears on listening time to a wide variety of headphone makes and models will bring the same or similar conclusions to an experienced critical listener who does a lot of shopping around
 
I can't be more clear than this      

 
See, you're against the use of eq, but you're also against the use of science to guide and/or justify the use of eq.
 
On the other hand, if you were anti-hype, you'd already have eq figured out (you said earlier that you don't know how to use it).

 

[julian67]

See, you're against the use of eq, but you're also against the use of science to guide and/or justify the use of eq.

On the other hand, if you were anti-hype, you'd already have eq figured out (you said earlier that you don't know how to use it).

que?!

 

[vid]

You want it in spanish, or what?

 

[julian67]

Coherent and intelligible would be good. Language secondary.

 

[Stereocilia]

   
See, you're against the use of eq, but you're also against the use of science to guide and/or justify the use of eq.
 
On the other hand, if you were anti-hype, you'd already have eq figured out (you said earlier that you don't know how to use it).

 
I'm not against the use of tone controls. I'm against some the claims being made about what tone controls can do, like making two different headphones sound the same or "flat." For example using tone controls to make Beats sound like Stax and vice verse is something I would have to hear for myself to believe, no offense to the science forum folks here on Head-Fi 
 
Here's the thing about tone controls for myself. I think tone control is better suited for full size speaker setups than headphone systems. I can show you summit fidelity headphone setups that have no tone controls at all. Why, because it doesn't need tone correction to sound transcending
 
Full size speaker setups are a completely different tweak, room acoustics, speaker placement, and so on... tone control is useful

 

[Shaffer]

I can show you summit fidelity headphone setups that have no tone controls at all. Why, because it doesn't need tone correction to sound transcending

Full size speaker setups are a completely different tweak, room acoustics, speaker placement, and so on... tone control is useful

FWIW, my system is not headphone-based; it's a true full-range, time-aligned rig that sits in a treated, dedicated room running off its own subpanel. Last time I saw tone controls in my rack was in 1986. Can't think of a single reason to have them. In the car, however, I use tone controls all the time.

 

[vid]

 
I'm not against the use of tone controls. I'm against some the claims being made about what tone controls can do, like making two different headphones sound the same or "flat." For example using tone controls to make Beats sound like Stax and vice verse is something I would have to hear for myself to believe, no offense to the science forum folks here on Head-Fi 
 
Here's the thing about tone controls for myself. I think tone control is better suited for full size speaker setups than headphone systems. I can show you summit fidelity headphone setups that have no tone controls at all. Why, because it doesn't need tone correction to sound transcending
 
Full size speaker setups are a completely different tweak, room acoustics, speaker placement, and so on... tone control is useful

 
When you hand that transcending headphone over to some guy with an ear shaped different from yours, he's going to find a headphone with a sucked-out midrange, 15 dB of treble boost, or something like that, depending on the physical deviation of his ears from yours. Sound quality isn't inherent in headphones, which means you need eq to make a universally transcending headphone. But your side of the argument seems to deal more with the other important factor: whether you can get a type of sound with eq. It's like with a pencil in that if you can't draw a realistic picture, for lack of practice or otherwise, it doesn't mean it can't be done, and it doesn't mean those who can won't benefit from their ability.

 

[Stereocilia]

FWIW, my system is not headphone-based; it's a true full-range, time-aligned rig that sits in a treated, dedicated room running off its own subpanel. Last time I saw tone controls in my rack was in 1986. Can't think of a single reason to have them. In the car, however, I use tone controls all the time.

I know what you mean. I've seen numerous turntable, pre-amp, mono-blocks, speaker setups without tone controls in the ridiculously priced segment of the market. If equalization was all that and a bag of chips why is it absent? Look around what do you see? I see a volume knob(s), input selector, and a gain switch..so how many top rated head amps have tone controls? The integrated amps have tone controls sometimes, I've seen DACs with selectable filters, I guess that qualifies as tone control. I get what your saying
 
I was reading up on the Schiit RAGNAROK amp and the YGGDRASIL dac by Head-Fi.org founder Jude Mansilla's, Summit-Fi reviews, I don't see any tone controls