hamfast gamgee: I find it funny that full sized headphones are back in fashion. I stopped carrying them years ago because they were too much hassle (taking up space in my backpack, completely useless while jogging). None of that has changed, but a lot of people now carry them. Another fashion accessory I can do without./More than £15 for headphones? Outrageous!
Gordon Bennett: hamfast gamgee: I find it funny that full sized headphones are back in fashion. I stopped carrying them years ago because they were too much hassle (taking up space in my backpack, completely useless while jogging). None of that has changed, but a lot of people now carry them. Another fashion accessory I can do without./More than £15 for headphones? Outrageous!They are a pain and they do take up quite a lot of room in my bag, but for me it's worth it as I can't abide the feeling of earbuds or any other in-ear headphones. The smaller ones that only cover part of the ear let in too much noise from outside and are also slightly uncomfortable. So, full-size it is.That, and having very obvious large headphones on is quite useful for giving out the message that I want to be left alone.
Seth'n'Spectrum: I'm an audiophile noob, but I can tell when an audio file is compressed comparing it to a .flac (end result of parents taking you to the symphony every month as a kid).I got my first pair of non-default headphones last winter, Shure SE115s, for about $60. I'd like to get another pair; does anyone have suggestions for earbuds in a similar price range?Got a Zune back when iPods didn't do lossless. For some reason, my uncompressed files still sound better played back on my computer with the same earbuds. Is the reason the hardware, or some physical thing (walking/standing/sitting)?
Lsherm: Luminiferous Aether: For those of you that have headphones that can truly benefit from it, I highly suggest getting an amplifier.The hippy that writes for CNET's audio column is always going on about headphone amplifiers. Of course, he's also always going on about turntables, too. He gives the distinct impression that if reel to reel tapes were still manufactured, he'd review those, too. He repeatedly uses words like: warmth, lively, responsive, subtle, lows, highs, and natural.
Abulafia: There are two completely different types of compression that are being referred to seemingly interchangeably in this thread. Let's just clear up a couple things here: the first occurrence of the word compression comes in the thread name. The compression being referred to here and in a number of the comments in the thread is data compression. This type of compression, used to squeeze a digital signal into a smaller number of bytes, was highly necessary in the early days of digital audio and -- among many other things -- allowed Apple to claim that you could put 1,000 songs in your pocket. They failed to mention that these thousand songs would sound vaguely like oatmeal.These sorts of data compression algorithms were invented by some very clever people and are based on some fairly accurate psychacoustic masking models, so they are a little amazing in how much they can reduce a song's file size without massively impacting the signal quality... but wow the algorithms can do a real number on fidelity if pushed too hard (which they almost always are). This sort of compression also seems somewhat less necessary these days when portable music players could easily store >1,000 digitally uncompressed songs.But there's an entirely different sort of compression that's being discussed elsewhere in the comments, namely dynamic range compression. This type of compression reduces the amplitude of the highest level signals and brings up the lowest level signals. It's necessary for LPs because of their inherent lack of a large dynamic range (the difference in the lowest level and highest level signals the record can reproduce). That said, a bit of compression can actually be very musical sounding.Overuse of dynamic range compression, on the other hand, squashes the sound in a very unpleasant way, resulting in music that lacks dynamics.This makes the music simultaneously unexciting and very fatiguing to listen to. In a terrible turn of events, it also allows mixers and mast ...
cannotsuggestaname: I have listened to music through some Beats headphones... and I'll take my Sennheiser 598's, for $100 less, any day of the week.
FlashHarry: it's sad; there's an entire generation that has never heard an uncompressed piece of music.
Artcurus: No, the frequency response on vinyl is limited to the cartridge. The RIAA curve was to correct the lower bass frequencies because it can cause the needle to jump from the groove.
Fubegra: FlashHarry: it's sad; there's an entire generation that has never heard an uncompressed piece of music.Actually, sometimes a little bit of compression can be useful - especially with a classical recording that has a few extreme peaks in an otherwise relatively quiet piece. Getting that to play at proper listening level would otherwise require a truly heroic sound system.This is a good case for parallel compression, which mixes in a compressed signal at a lower level against the uncompressed signal. The result sounds like moving a few rows up in the concert hall, without killing the dynamic range. It's pretty fiddly, though, and easier to work with in post-processing (though it can be done on-the-fly with analog compressors).Unfortunately, in pop music it has become standard practice to utterly crush any dynamic range and even intentionally boost the music into clipping, just to make the recording louder than everyone else's. Unfortunately, the result sounds like crap, and listening to it is tiring.
Coco LaFemme: I don't care if I'm listening to .mp3s, .wavs, .flacs, cassettes, or vinyl.....I'm not paying $300 for headphones. I don't see how anyone could blow that kind of money on such a frivolous product.
meatofmystery: Beyerdynamic + USB sound card= still less than the cost of sh*t Beats cans
Fubegra: meatofmystery: Beyerdynamic + USB sound card= still less than the cost of sh*t Beats cansDingdingdingdingding! We have a winner! My go-to cans are the DT 770 Pro/80, and my second-in-line are Grado SR60. The Beyers are built like tanks - while the velour earpads no longer look new, they're as comfortable as ever, after five years of heavy use.My usual listening setup involves an E-MU 0404 USB interface; wonderful sound, but it's now discontinued and no release-quality drivers are forthcoming for Windows 7 or later. Needless to say, I won't be buying anything more from Creative. A Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 is in my laptop bag (it works with Win7).A good clue that a headphone maker actually knows what it's doing is when that company also makes professional microphones. Beyerdynamic, AKG, Shure, Sony, Audio-Technica, and Sennheiser all fit this criterion.Koss and Grado don't fit this mold, but they're also good brands to consider, and I consider the Grado SR60 (or newer SR60i) to be the best deal in audio.
Fubegra: Koss and Grado don't fit this mold, but they're also good brands to consider, and I consider the Grado SR60 (or newer SR60i) to be the best deal in audio.
vharshyde: Dre is not doing anything new. Skullcandy convinced people of the same dreck, using crappy little drivers in their headphones and selling at a markup. Just like the Monster cables that came before, their priduct actually sucks balls, but they are selling a brand on cognitive dissonance. People will buy them, and rather than admitting they got duped out of three hundred bucks, they will staunchly defend it so that they don't look like an absolute fool for being duped.
Quantum Apostrophe: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]He's just taking it back.
dc0012c: I've always been rather partial to Beyer cans. I've got a DT 770 Pro pair for editing and mixdown as well as my favorite for Skyping and remote voiceovers:[www.cameratim.com image 231x300]The Beyer DT 109. I can wear that pair for hours.I also use a pair of Sony 7506s when I travel or do remote audio 'cause they sound great and fold up pretty well.[lohjinawi.com image 500x500]As for earbuds, I go Shure.
thornhill: Meh.How I listen to music:[farm4.static.flickr.com image 334x500]With a SACD player and in surround sound.
poot_rootbeer: I'm honestly surprised that hipsters haven't flocked to Koss PortaPros yet: folding headphones with industrial design still the best that 1987 has to offer, but nonetheless the best-sounding audio you can buy for $40 at K-Mart.But then maybe it's not just looking ridiculous that's important, but the combination of looking ridiculous and paying way too much for the privilege.
Brainsick: thornhill: Meh.How I listen to music:[farm4.static.flickr.com image 334x500]With a SACD player and in surround sound.That must be a pain in the ass to take on the bus[coolmaterial.com image 570x456]Not the best sound quality, but they look badass, I got 'em for $20, and the housing is aluminum with a kevlar-wrapped cord./You shouldn't be using headphones for anything other than monitoring anyway, if you work in studio production
ScouserDuck: Umm..people were buying the Bose noise canceling headphones like crazy years before BBD.
BEER_ME_in_CT: FlashHarry: it's sad; there's an entire generation that has never heard an uncompressed piece of music.Let me guess, on Vinyl? LOL.Listening to an MP3 on 300 headphones or watching Netflix streaming on your new 60" HDTV. Both are equally pointless.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 23 2017 05:33:48
Runtime: 0.537 sec (536 ms)