Slashdot Mirror
How $1,500 Headphones Are Made
CNETNate writes "A tour of Sennheiser's Hanover factory reveals for the first time how its audiophile headphones are assembled by hand. The company recently announced its most expensive and innovative headphones to date, the HD 800, which discarded the conventional method of headphone driver design for a new 'donut-shaped' ring driver idea. Only 5,000 of these headphones can be made in a year, and this gallery offers a behind-the-scenes look at the construction process."
From TFA:
Honest to god, I can't tell real audiophile reviews from the parodies anymore :-(
My pics.
But the photo captions deserve a win for biggest douchebaggery.
Bravo.
it's just that Sennheiser includes those quality control steps that the Chinese factories skimp on. They also take more than 0.85 seconds to solder the wires, and they use solder of reasonable quality.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Only 5,000 of these headphones can be made in a year... OR ELSE
The city name is "Hannover", home of CeBit Fair and Hannover Fair.
A few days ago, I bought the cheapest pair of computer speakers with subwoofers I could find in the neighborhood, $USD 15.
They were Chinese made. With a sticker - "QC PASS" [i.e. Quality Control pass]
LOL, the damn connectors right next to it didn't work properly and I had "bend" the connector ever so little to make it work again.
Yes, these were probably assembled by hand too. But, not in a factory originally named with coolest name I have heard in years "Laboratium Wennebostel".
I wonder if that was hand made too, the name.
I was sure that, for that price, they were made by well-trained monkeys! If not, they should be!
Is it fraud, or an April Fool's Day joke? In my opinion, this is an inappropriate story for Slashdot: 1) It may be an advertisement that seems to try to take advantage of the weaknesses of sound enthusiasts. 2) It is more appropriate for Onion, "America's Finest [Not] News Source". Even Onion doesn't often do as much leg-pulling as that story. 3) To have a good reputation it is necessary that publications always disclose if they have taken money. 4) April Fool's Day is 2 weeks away.
discarded the conventional method of headphone driver design for a new 'donut-shaped' ring driver idea
At first I thought it was talking about software drivers...
Nope, this is an honest review, but its just not very professional.
In my opinion there isn't a person on earth that would need reproduction that accurate. Seriously 6Hz?
"Curiouser and Curiouser" - Alice
These headphones are not Sennheiser's most expensive headphones to date (not even close, in fact).
Enter the HE90 - also called the Orpheus. It is most likely the most expensive headphone ever produced. It had a very limited product run, and it sells these days for around $15, 000.
Just to give you an idea of what they're like, if I recall correctly the amp has it's own -ignition key- ;-)
While I could never justify paying $1500 for headphones, I have to say that I've been consistently impressed with the sound quality from Sennheiser 280-HD headphones. I'm sure there are better headphones to be had, but probably not for anywhere near $80.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
If accuracy across the audio range is of primary importance, headphones will always severely pale compared with a set of reference monitors (a.k.a. speakers) due to their physical limitations. The most I've spent on headphones thus far has been around $300 - I've spent around $600-$700 for four different sets of cans - and I've yet to find headphones that aren't severely flawed. Headphones are a second-choice option, albeit one that comes up a lot in every day life.
Most people, though, don't want accuracy and just want something that sound pretty. You can get reasonably pretty sounding headphones for cheap, though the limited range will still show up in some fashion or another. I recently bought a copy of Closer by Plastikman, and even playing it at modest volumes results in the bass mangling the speakers.
Probably needs a media which is not only uncompressed, but also contains redundant data (kidding)
While I completely agree with your sentiments, I doubt your 2inch mids would produce 18-20000Hz with a relatively flat response rate.
I could buy an incredible set of monitors and enough foam for a large room with 1500 that would blow these guys out of the water though. I just dont understand the obsession with headphones, especially when they are going to be pumping 160Kbps AAC out of an iPod.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Disagreements with the article does not make one a troll...
Is there any reason in particular that headphones cannot accurately reproduce sound?
The only thing I can think of that a headphone would have trouble reproducing, is a deep, loud bass. That's only because it doesn't have the displacement to highly compress low frequency. Monitor speakers suffer the same problem though.
Still, because headphones sit right next to the ear, they're _much_ more efficient at delivering sound waves to the ear. This allows them to deliver sound at a comparable volume, with much less effort. As far as I can tell, there's no theoretical reason why a set of headphones can't match monitor speakers for accuracy.
If accuracy across the audio range is of primary importance, headphones will always severely pale compared with a set of reference monitors (a.k.a. speakers) due to their physical limitations.
Loudspeakers have to be placed somewhere.. Usually in a room. The acoustics of the room (echo / reverberation / cancellations) will severely impact the sound of speakers, and there's no way around it without spending thousands on deadening and soundproofing the room. Yes, you can RTA and EQ, and get speakers sounding almost as accurate as cans, but it will never be as tight, unless you have a sonically dead room.
A pair of reference cans, on the other hand, interface with your ears much more accurately, and are not at all affected by room acoustics. If they have flat frequency response on one pair of ears, chances are they will have flat frequency response on most other pairs of ears too.
My work requires me to critically listen to music almost constantly (I write audio algorithms / processors for broadcasting). I normally listen to music on calibrated speakers, but when it's time for extra critical listening, my I put my HD650s on. Speakers are no substitute -- they hide too much, smooth over problems. Reference cans give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (whether you want to hear it or not!).
I currently own a pair of HD650s and they were worth every penny at around $500. Electrostatic cans (STAX brand) would be another step up in accuracy, but comes at a hefty price (cost, fragility, special high-voltage amplifier etc). Until I can audition a pair of HD800s for free, I'll stick with what I have. :)
I was fortunate enough to purchase a good set of HD600s and a headphone amp to go with it. I've used them as my primary computer sound system for over a decade now.
I'd describe the Sennheisers as very detailed and precise. I can hear things with them that I have a hard time picking out with my stereo and other cheaper headphones. In addition the soft donut pads make the headphones a joy to wear. I can wear them all day without my ears feeling sore or my head feeling fatigued.
Shameless plug for HeadRoom at www.headphone.com where I purchased my gear. These guys make headphone amps and also spend lots of time testing all sorts of headphones to go with them. They're a wealth of information for anything headphones.
I just dont understand the obsession with headphones, especially when they are going to be pumping 160Kbps AAC out of an iPod.
That's not what these headphones are used for. In fact, they'd be lousy for it -- TFA even talks about how acoustically transparent they are to the surroundings (i.e. they're not earplugs), so I couldn't imagine using them on the subway with my mp3 player. For that, I'd use my Etymotic ER-4P canal-phones instead ($200 or so). 20dB attenuation across the board -- essentially earplugs with near-reference-quality headphones built in. Indispensable in an airplane!
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/06/22/amazon-reader-review.html
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
All I want is a 1/8" stereo plug that doesn't start failing after 6 months. There's nothing more annoying that having to diddle the wire near the plug so the sound stops cutting out.
I tried buying an end plug from Radio Shack and getting it to work but I couldn't. It's only 4 wires... yeah I suck.
..but those things better do a lot more than play sounds if I'm going to pay $1500 for them, like wash my dishes or give me a happy ending.
You must be new here. :)
Seriously though, take a look at the past couple of stories posted on the front page. Yeah - this story isn't out of place at all, unfortunately.
All I want is a 1/8" stereo plug that doesn't start failing after 6 months. There's nothing more annoying that having to diddle the wire near the plug so the sound stops cutting out.
I tried buying an end plug from Radio Shack and getting it to work but I couldn't. It's only 4 wires... yeah I suck.
Tip/Ring/Sleeve.
Tip is left signal. Ring is right signal. Sleeve is common ground.
Expensive headphones use thick, proper cables that don't fail just because you stumble. It might yank the socket right out of your laptop, but at least you'll still have headphones :)
Ah, the ultimate irony of audiophiles! They get so distracted by picking out which gear meets their exacting and nuanced specifications that they forget they're listening to shitty music.
I just can't help but think about how many other good uses could those those 1500 USD gone to. One thought: Starving children in Africa !!
In this field no matter how much you know, You still don't know anything.
...someone who listens to the stereo, not the music.
// Been said before. Will be said many times after this.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
There are many different standards for "accuracy", including "repeatability" and "flat", which are not the same. Headphones are superior to speakers for repeatability, when measured at the ear canal entrance. But they are not "flat" because they include a built-in simulated "free field response" HRTF that modifies the signal (at least, all consumer-market 'phones include this filter), plus some other geometric design issues.
With some work it is possible to get loudspeakers to give a flat response at a fixed reference listening position, but given two individuals it is impossible to guarantee that they will hear the "same" thing at that spot since there is no control over the HRTF--so, the repeatability isn't really there.
Also there is a difference between listening for artifacts (e.g. compression artifacts) and listening for mastering. Usually headphones are preferred for the former, but for mastering people usually prefer loudspeakers.
BTW I use the HD650 also, they are awesome.
The idea of a flat frequency response on a set of cans is laughable. Even a $27,600 pair of ADAM mastering monitors can't provide a flat frequency response, so don't mislead casual readers into thinking that your HD650s are flat -- here is their "flat" frequency response.
One of the completely ignored problems with headphones (other than ones I'm sure you've heard before) is that physical positioning (distance and angle) of the speakers relative to the user's ear canal makes a big difference in the sound heard by the user, but the standard for putting on cans is generally just put them on how they're comfortable. It's been a little while since I went shopping for cans, but I haven't heard of any headphones employing a way of making sure the speakers will sit precisely right for every user.
Rooms do provide problems with frequency response using monitors, but people like Ethan Winer help you to figure out how to measure, reduce, or compensate for them. How do you compensate for that frequency response curve of your HD650s?
Headphones can provide a better transient response time compared with single speaker monitors because cans are smaller, but that's a very limited notion of accuracy - and one that goes away when you get a monitor with more than one speaker. Heck, I bet some small-coned cheap-ass computer speakers could match the transient response of headphones but I doubt you'd recommend them for accuracy.
Headphones may well be better for your usage, but their abilities are very limited compared with monitors when the ultimate goal is accuracy. Not to mention, broadcasting is not exactly a forum where accuracy reigns supreme - e.g., high compression and scooping are usually the end goal, not an aberrant occurrence.
Look up "infrasound."
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
I believe that the target market here is best described as the "audiophule."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
In audio equipment, reproduction accuracy is all there is.
You personally might be willing to accept distortions of various kinds (we all make our own tradeoffs), but the point in audio design is that the equipment attempts to recreate as faithfully as possible the original sound. The fact that people are willing to accept less than outstanding audio fidelity is analogous to people being willing to eat fast food. Most people being willing to eat fast food doesn't mean that a world-class chef using the finest ingredients doesn't create a fundamentally different gustatory and nutritional experience, or that there aren't people who can discern and appreciate the difference.
In this case, pushing transducer response farther and farther beyond the audible range of hearing improves the linearity of the response within the audible range. The same way that a 192k sampling rate doesn't mean people can hear up to 96kHz, it means that the filter response in the audio band is better, driver response down to 6Hz or up to 50k doesn't mean Sennheiser is suggesting people can hear down or up to those points, but that the response from 20-20k is better.
In the audio work I've done (music recording and film sound), we've worked very hard to achieve the most accurate reproduction possible...because we can hear it.
The best analogy for how that could even be possible is the way one's hearing adapts to quiet. At first, compared to normal environments, a 20dB room seems very quiet, even silent. But spend time in that 20dB room and then move to a 0dB anechoic chamber and that previously quiet 20dB can seem surprisingly noisy. Another visual analogy is the way that some people don't notice compression artifacts in images at first, but see them easily once they know what to look for.
I'm reminded of the early days of HDTV equipment manufacturers trying to convince us (where I was at the time) it was finally possible to use HD for feature film principal photography. Some manufacturer or other had brought in their latest and greatest camera demo reel, where they had shot footage on film and then at some secret point cut over to footage shot on HD. One of the people in the screening room wasn't really a technical person, and quietly asked us (quite reasonably) that if the quality of the images was really so hard to distinguish what they could look for to tell when the images switched from film to HD. Our (only half-joking) answer was "just look for when the film guys start vomiting." :-D
I could never tell the difference between their top-of-the-line and midrange/economy models. Maybe I miss out on a musical nirvana, or maybe I just save a lot of money, you be the judge :D
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Liket: Sorry my post is a bit aggressive-sounding. I should have revised it, but I also should get to work.
1,500$ headphones should come with a picture of some poor third world citizen who died of starvation.
Haha. I am holding in my hands the box for my Panasonic RP-HJE240 headphones ~$40.
:(
Frequency Response: 6Hz - 23Hz
I have a friend with some nice BOSE headphones (don't know the model), but they stack up pretty nice against them. The BOSE are nicer, but not by nearly as much as you would think.
I plug these into my Create Zen Vision:W and the sound is VERY nice.
Sidenote: Anyone know where to get a replacement screen for a Create Zen Vision:W?
I hate doing this, but that 23Hz should be 23KHz, noticed AS I hit the submit button.
NOTICE TO SLASHDOT READERS
Liket's post would have been longer and even more informative, but unfortunately he was hit by a bus whilst crossing the road using his canal-phones. We're sure you wish him a speedy recovery.
Why the hell would someone use an engineering scale to "measure" the size of the headphone jack? You'd use that particular scale for a fairly large drawing too. A "1 inch = 60 feet" scale isn't quite what I'd use to measure a headphone jack.
Some years back, more than I care to admit, I lashed out and bought some HD 414s. Even today they still produce a great sound in comparison to many others on the market and take up less space than dedicated sound room :-)
My advice is spend up now before her in doors gets a say.
So Sennheiser (which I personally consider notably shitty in comparsion, especially their 'low-end' models) will be at the top again, with some bizar scheme that costs 1500$ and brings whatever minor improvement then can muster. They'll probably be more comfortable the first 4 weeks or something like that. Sony's current model of the CD line will - as usual - still come in second or third in all meaningfull audiophile 'Top Ten' Lists of headphones. And they cost less than 100 last I checked. ...
Sony CD490 - to date unmatched as far as I'm concerned. If only I could get some repair kit for the cushions
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
When was the last time you picked up a pair of aviator headsets? It's the same price range. Price != Quality
Yes, but at $150/sf, the additional cost for an unfinished room in any non-descript suburban neighborhood, your listening room would have to be exceedingly small to beat the price of cans. In fact, I suspect you would be hard pressed to cover a small room in good acoustic foam for that money, much less pay the acoustic engineer to design the system for you (remember, the design fee is built into the price of the headphones). If you live in a big city, you can multiply that sf number by a factor of 5 or more.
Headphones have many uses, including isolating yourself from the environment (listening on subway/bus/train/airplane/6 year olds) as well as the opposite (getting to listen to your content without disturbing others). They are also far more economical than an equivalent setup in free space which, as I pointed out above, can get fantastically expensive very quickly. I have a set of Sony MDR-V6 (well, not really - they're the commercial version, but I can't remember the number) which go for about $80-90. After switching to the beyerdynamic pads, they're comfortable for about 2 hours at a stretch and are great for watching movies when the rest of the family is asleep. They're every bit as good as my HT speakers. I also have a set of etymotics (3 something, about $120) which are fantastic when flying or mowing the lawn or golfing solo.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If you buy those headphones, make sure all your music is in WAV format. FLAC tends so sound rather "flat", whereas WAV is much "warmer". Read all about it.
EOS
I believe a loud enough burst of around 8 hz can forcibly loosen the bowels - interesting test. Take a friend to the Hi-Fi store with your special iPod.
I was going to mark this funny but, after reading the links, now I just wish /. had a sad category...
I'm not convinced there's a point anyway. With headphones, you get so much difference in sound just from how little or how much the foam pads are compressed that I can't imagine anyone being able to use the word "accurate" when talking about headphones unless it is tongue-in-cheek. For accuracy, nothing beats a well-designed listening room with good speakers. Headphones are fundamentally "ballpark" at best.
NO hardware is going to fix or address the fundamental problem of the recording. With all the compression that goes on these days with "mastering" and (this makes me cringe) "RE-mastering", you pretty much end up with garbage in-garbage out. And I haven't even made it past the store-bought CD yet. OK, so you're now listening to garbage-out very accurately with these cans. However, 90% of recordings made today still sound like shit no matter how much hardware you throw at them. You think you feel better about it because you're $1500 lighter in the wallet.
You would be amazed at what you can hear with a pair of $50 cans and a GOOD recording.
Algorithms for compressing audio and/or encoding it for transmission? You have to test them for quality before you can even think about using them for broadcast...
Ah, I'm not trying to offend you directly here, but I AM curious as to who's really thinking about it and what their standards are?
Radio certainly doesn't give a shit about the compression or "exciter" limits they may add to ensure maximum volume/output for their 150,000 watts of broadcast. As long as they're louder than the next station on the dial, who cares.
The music industry as a whole (90% of recordings) doesn't give a shit about quality, as their levels of mastering and "exciting" are all turned up to 11 to make sure THEIR sound is the "biggest"...on the radio.
And talk radio? Please. Most of them still live on the AM dial, like it's really going to matter on "surround-sound" XM? Audiobook recordings are still done on LOW quality MP3 mono.
The specs given in the article are the -10dB points. Looking at the full specs, the -3dB down points (the usual standard for frequency response limits) show a response of 14Hz-44KHz. That's still a bit of overkill, but knowing that a driver doesn't roll off until significantly above or below where you can hear means that it's more likely to stay completely linear in the frequencies that are audible.
Have you looked at the pics? THey look like car stereo speakers mounted on a headset... once you get to the point where your headphones are approximately 1/3rd the size of your head, why bother with them at all?
Sennheiser made a set of headphones called the Orpheus, that retailed for over $15000. http://www.sgheadphones.net/index.php?showtopic=6020
It's all just a matter of priorities. Some folks think spending over $10,000 on a car is dumb, others see spending more than $500 on a computer, or more than $50 on a video card is stupid. For anyone who thinks that spending $1,500 on a pair of headphones is crazy, the simple fact is that you're not the intended audience.
I don't necessarily trust what I read from so-called 'audiophiles'. Being an 'audiophile' is a little bit like being a 'photographer'. Just because you took one good picture of your dog doesn't mean you're now an expert on all things photographic. The audiophile world is, IMHO, similar. The only way to *know* what "good" stuff sounds like is to listen to the "good" stuff for yourself. You can read hundreds of reviews that describe 'veiled soundstage', or 'low-oxygen connectors', or 'velvet midrange', etc. But it doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't put it into context. The only way to do it is to listen and decide for yourself!
About a year ago, I decided that I wanted a *good* pair of headphones for my office. I exchanged several emails with the folks at headphone.com about this, and with their blessing I ordered about $1,500 worth of headphones and amps from them, knowing that $1,000+ of it would be returned.
I spent several weeks comparing and contrasting a half-dozen of their 'best' headphones. The result? There is a big difference between $100 cans and $500 cans. Try it for yourself. Some people might not be able to tell the difference. And that's cool, buy the $100 pair and be happy. But just as some people enjoy wine, cars, cigars, cheeses, types of underwear, video cards, {whatever!} more than others is why the market supports so many varieties of, well, everything. And at different price points.
FWIW, I ended up keeping a pair of Sennheiser HD-650's because their sound was simply incredible and they were comfortable for long periods of time.
So I'm taking it that all "menaingful audiophile 'Top Ten' Lists" are qualified by having your headset of choice on them? Please.
"its most expensive and innovative headphones to date"
Hmmm...looks like adblocker is missing a few.
$1500 headphones are made. I'm interested in WHY $1500 headphones are made.
QamuIs Heg qaq law' lorvIs yInqaq puS
What many slashdotters seem to be missing is that this is in part just a cheap marketing trick.
Go to a shop for a bottle of wine. There's one for ten quid, and one for thirty. Which do you pick? I'd almost always buy the cheaper.
Now suppose they had a £200 bottle of wine beside the ten and the thirty. The thirty looks cheaper in comparison and people will be more likely to buy it, seeing it as a compromise between quality and expense.
Same thing applies with the headphones.
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
and they give those 128kbps MP3s a much warmer sound.
I wouldn't take much notice of that. A lot of headphone manufacturers put numbers like that on, but without a frequency response graph it's pretty useless.. what you're after is a flat graph maybe tailing off at the edges.
You could design a pair of headphones that has 3hz->30khz if you wanted. In a bell curve. Hell, I'm sure someone has...
This. Or in more polite terms:
A music fan uses his stereo to listen to music
An audiophile uses music to listen to his stereo.
LOL! If I had mod points in this thread, I'd mod you up :-D.
I did.
I simply ordered the parts. here's my post about it:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/project-frankensixfifties-tm-w-pics-390615/
cost was in the $200 range. brand 'new' cost (with fancy box) from JRmusic (cheapest around) is closer to $340.
my test was to see if there really was 'magic' in the uber expensive hd650 or not.
my conclusion: no magic. none at all.
save your money, get the hd600. its 99.9% the same driver and hardware.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Why is the headphone jack being soldered on with what appears to be a bent and absolutely filthy soldering gun tip?
What does that do to the precious non-contaminated analog signal??
1) Cut a deal with manufacturing facility in China
2) Have them make headphones for a few bucks a piece
3) Have them remove earpieces from headstrap
4) Have them shipped to Germany
5) Hire minimum-wage workers to put the strap back on and slap "Sennheiser" and "assembled in the EU" stickers on them
6) Charge thousands apiece
7) Profit
8) There is no ?????
(Disclaimer: This is only cynical rambling and may or may not represent the actual process of Sennheiser or any other audio manufacturer)
My guess is that everything on Sennheiser headphones that can be better made by machine, is, and contrariwise. But it's quite likely that in the relatively small production volumes they do not actually have the R&D and buying power to get exactly what they want in things like leads. I like to do my own high-current wiring for SELV, and I have yet to find a "perfect" 35 or 50 sq mm crimp despite checking out all the well known suppliers. As a result, despite using all the proper tools, I spend about 5 minutes just testing each connection after I make it. I suspect that Sennheiser have an analogous problem.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
all this time I thought they were forged by the gnomes from the gold taken from the mines beneath Zurich...
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
As a music lover and a physicist, I can confidently say that €30 headphones are at 95% enjoyment level of the hypothetical ideal headphone. Which means that no headphone should cost more than about €32 if quality is concerned. Of course I'm well aware that the buyers of these €1150 headphones buy them mostly for the sake of being able to tell their 'friends' they've spent more than a €1000 on their headphones. But still, I, being who I am and not concerned about status, will spend the €1120 remaining differently. And if I had really large quantities of money such that I really didn't know what to do with it anymore, I would probably invest it in research. That would make me feel a lot better than bragging to my friends. /.'s software should fix it so that I don't need to enter HTML entities for euro signs.
P.S. The coders behind
For a long time, the standard for headphones in hardcore audio was Sennheiser's HD-580. Even though Sennheiser sold more expensive models, everyone seemed to consider the HD-580 the pinnacle. Well, they don't make HD-580's anymore; and last I checked, the logical successor products (the HD-600?) weren't getting anywhere near as strong reviews.
So what's the logical replacement for the HD-580? What's the best pair of headphones for under $300? And what's the amount you'd be expected to spend now to find headphones of the same quality as the HD-580 (and what's the product)?
Do you mean $1500 or $100?
I bought the HD-280 a couple years ago (although I think they were on sale for $65) and I thought they were a great deal. They sound much better than any speaker/receiver combination I could get for that price. Alternately, they are much less expensive than a good set of speakers/receiver would cost me.
Unlike speakers I can use them in the office, and don't have to compete with the television at home. Furthermore, they have pretty decent sound isolation which means I can play them at lower volume than a cheap set of headphones, saving my hearing.
Heck, when I was doing a lot of traveling, I even shelled out about $90 (also on sale) for a pair of Etymotic ER-6 in-ear headphones. Those things are an absolute hearing savior on airplanes. Their noise isolation has a very flat frequency response, so you can block out nearly all of the background noise on the plane but still hear the attendants when they speak to you. I've taken to wearing those things the entire flight regardless of whether I'm listening to music or not. They also pack a lot better than a pair of over-the-ear headphones.
$1500 headphones are made using $30,000 screwdrivers.
Got to pay for all those capital investments somehow.....
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The music industry as a whole (90% of recordings) doesn't give a shit about quality
You're probably right, but for those of us who live on the remote fringes of civilised society and listen to classical or jazz music, the difference in quality between so-so and good equipment becomes quite noticeable. I wouldn't say it's worth mortgaging your home for a decent sound system, since the law of diminishing returns (to say nothing of snake-oil) is nowhere more evident than in the hi-fi industry, but unless you're tone or stone deaf, there is definitely a distinction to be made between the usual equipment you find on retail shelves and the kind of gear that you might pay a few grand for.
If you don't want to know good headphones could be,
then never, never listen to STAX electrostatics!
I listened to these awful looking "headspeakers"
that were nothing short of incredible. Instead
of the sound appearing to come from inside your
head, these worked more like speakers. I could
place instruments not just left and right, but
forward and back and slight left and left, and
so on. Incredible dimension. I say never,
because the top of their line will cost you
a lot more than L1000 (I think about 2x).
They charge that much because they know they can.
Don't forget about the morans who insist on using the term "monitor" for things that aren't actually monitors, but are in fact speakers.
I find installing a carpet and some curtains helps with this.
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
They just use a different price tag so nutjobs can hear the difference. Works amazingly well, and results in $1495 extra profit.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This is why real audio pros only listen to music in the middle of the desert on an windless day.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I just think $1,500 for headphones is a bit out of my price range. One thing, Sennheiser isn't the only on that uses open donuts.
I opted for a $99 pair of Grado SR-80 headphones. They leak like no tomorrow but they sound sweet!
I just got a pair, and they sound really good, but the cord is way too short. I really hope that Monster puts out a 3 foot extension cord for under $90; gotta be frugal in this economy.
The music industry as a whole (90% of recordings) doesn't give a shit about quality You're probably right, but for those of us who live on the remote fringes of civilised society and listen to classical or jazz music, the difference in quality between so-so and good equipment becomes quite noticeable. I wouldn't say it's worth mortgaging your home for a decent sound system, since the law of diminishing returns (to say nothing of snake-oil) is nowhere more evident than in the hi-fi industry, but unless you're tone or stone deaf, there is definitely a distinction to be made between the usual equipment you find on retail shelves and the kind of gear that you might pay a few grand for.
I couldn't agree with you more with regards to that 10% or so of quality recordings that make it to our hands unscathed by the loudness war. I love listening to older recordings, classical, or a good live performance, as I find those types of recordings tend to garner a focus on quality vs. quantity sold or radio broadcast. For that type of listening, yes my HD580s and my little Headroom amp do nicely.
The parent and my original reply was regarding broadcast algorithms.
.. and for the majority of us who've led active lives, lived in cities, gone to rock concerts, walked past building sites on the way to work, been too close to screaming babies... well by the time we're 25 our hearing is that damaged that there's no point spending that much money anyway on cans.
Really, where and how do these audiophiles live? are they all wrapped in cotton wool from the day they are born and hide away in country retreats? Because I would have thought the general noise levels most of us are subjected to damage our hearing to the degree that it's really not worth spending too much money on headphones beyond finding ones that are comfortable. I am 42 and the vast majority of people my age or younger have grown up as a teenager with some sort of personal sound system and cheap headphones stuffed into their ears at too high a volume for several years. iPods have moved that demographic much wider as well now.
Anybody give me some stats on amount of average hearing loss past 20 or so? My suspicion is that the vast majority of high end headphones put out an extended range audio frequencies that can't be entirely heard by the majority of their purchasers.
Wennebostel is just the name of the village. See Wedemark.
Not quite the same ballpark, but I've got some Etymotic Research ER-4s. In ear, noise isolating, reference audio. Being a tight arse I struggled with the price (USD260 when I first got some), but the detail I get out of them is spectacular and the noise isolating characteristics mean I can listen at a nondestructive volume _anywhere_. Subway rail squeal, crying babies, aircraft noise, drop saw. All made tolerable. In a quiet space they're perfect for total immersion. I was staggered by the new things I heard in old favourite tunes. Best bit is I can take them anywhere (can't do that with a room) and don't attract muggers (like on/over earphones). I wouldn't go to the extreme of $500+ cans cos I'm not an audiophile, but seriously the difference between sub $100 and $100 plus is mindboggling. Try some, they sell themselves.
Only 5,000 of these headphones can be made in a year... OR ELSE
Typical conversation in Sennheiser's production department:
Dr. Agonball: "Herr Schneider, what does accounting say about this year's HD 800 production?"
Herr Schneider: "It's over FIVE THOUSAAAAAAAND!" (Crushes $4000 MP3 player)
Dr. Agonball: "WHAT?! FIVE THOUSAND?!"
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Most studio "engineers" mix and master on loudspeakers because headphones are too flattering.
Headphones give you a totally different perception of the image (left-right positioning) than loudspeakers. With loudspeakers, sound from the left source arrives at both the right and left ear. Sound from the right source arrives at both the right and left ear. This is not true for headphones.
Have you listened to their low-end systems? The prices are starting from about 700-900 $ for the headphones plus the amplifier.
Buy a cheap 3.5mm extension cable. Since the end you plug the headphones is free to move, it won't get stressed as much. If the extension cable starts acting up, just replace it.
$1500. That's like, what, â10 or something nowadays?