On Oct 20, 4:54*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
--
Rich
Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,
Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!
But you already had dozens of headphones?
Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about
15,
maybe 20 different pairs.
You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced *than *any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)
gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.
Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.
No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.
That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones past
posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of a post that
seems to be very reasonable.
I prefer to call it experience. Calling it prejudice seems prejudicial.
Arguing whether "15, maybe 20" falls short of the number Gerard expects
is definitely nitpicking.
Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity.
Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.
Me, too.
*For instance, I enjoy
my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
that model.
It would appear that history is on my side because the manufacturer of that
product has just lately vastly improved it, if the recent comments of *Mr.
Dorsey (a generally reliable and highly experienced source) are to be taken
seriously.
Interesting, but does not show history is on your side. Many worthwhile
products are improved upon after introduction.
The Grado site says the following:
"What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of which
gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"
Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
auditioned maybe a decade ago.
I'm sure Grado stood behind both the old and new versions. For all I
know, the 80 is just a 60 with better test specs for, say, driver
matching and it was the 60 that needed improving. Or maybe the line is
built on common components that became unavailable necessitating a
redesign.
It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
"'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.
OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.
rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.
Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.
Indeed.
Stephen
Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
like everywhere else, for audio:
1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
for EMI shielding.
Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
shielded/braided) will help.
I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...