Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Headphones. Once you get to the $300 range, the more expensive ones sound different, not necessarily better. I have some electrostatics that have great extension, but the “real” sound is so harsh after a few hours.
I'm not sure you should "cheap out" on headphones per se. The really cheap ones are usually horrible, both in terms of sound quality, usability and comfort (well, except for wired Apple ones, allegedly, though they never fit me right). It's just that it makes no sense to go for really expensive ones, unless you're really into audio and love hearing the tiny sound reproduction differences between them, or enjoying the different tech etc. The middle ground of $50-$100 for in-ears and $100-300 for over-ears will often offer you good/great/excellent sound quality and the same usability&comfort as more expensive ones.
Yeah, I've noticed this too. I'm not an audiophile, but I do enjoy quality audio. Everything seems to plateu around the 300$ price point. At that level, the sound is reproduced with as much accuracy as reasonably possible, and the build quality is pretty good. Anything beyond that point is basically added "features" and does not reflect improvement in sound reproduction.
I don't want "Tripple bass rumbler", or "Crisp treble supercharger". I want my headset to reproduce the audio as perfectly as possible, without altering it.
Come to think of it, adjusted for inflation, the Roland headsets I've had for the past 20 years have all been around 300$
How can you reasonably enjoy Subwoofer: The Movie without the $1600 triple bass rumbler?!
I mostly agree with that, I would even go as far as saying that the reproduction quality starts to plateu with good $100 devices. A vast majority of the audio recordings isn't just good enough in quality for a good headset too make much of a difference. All of the music if you're using spotify xD.
That said, I don't have a lot of things, but I consider the outrageusly expensive Sennheise IE 600, I typically wear 10h+ daily, worth it.
Yeah, I'm in pretty much the same agreement. As long as it's tuned well, comfort takes top priority for me. Sometimes though, the right combination of things can cost a bit more.
I can't say I necessarily agree on this one as I really enjoy my nicer headphones, but $300 is probably the price where you hit some serious diminishing returns. It could also be argued that many (most?) of the more expensive headphones have no business being priced like they are.