4 ms·

Engadget did a test of headphones (earbud) and it seemed to indicate for those, more expensive (at least for those they tested) did better: http://www.engadget

Engadget did a test of headphones (earbud) and it seemed to indicate for those, more expensive (at least for those they tested) did better: http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/09/big-box-earbuds-put-to-a-blind-taste-test-in-the-engadget-labs/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/09/big-box-earbuds-put-to-a-...

modeless 15y ago
Their methodology doesn't seem very rigorous. It's impossible to do a true double-blind test of earbud sound in isolation because they feel different in the ear and that's likely to affect sound perception.
- starwed 15y ago
  I'd really be kinda surprised if there wasn't a substantial difference between $10 and $100 headphones. That's not very controversial -- it's the ultra-high end products that have no connection to reality. (Also, they mention Bose is disdained, but I've noticed several times in "lets make fun of audiophile" threads that a lot of people do defend their headphones.)
- glimcat 15y ago
  Their methodology is rubbish. The fact that they can't possibly be blind invalidates the approach to begin with. But they also didn't remain within one class of device when the physical coupling method does a lot to affect the result. They also didn't do any work whatsoever to research models which are often recommended as being good. If Engadget didn't have such high journalistic integrity, I'd suspect it of being a sideways ad for Bose and Monster.
- tzs 15y ago
  That's not a problem, since to actually use the things you have to put them in your ears. Hence, if the feel of them affects sound perception, you want to include that.
  - modeless 15y ago
    Yeah, but everyone's ears are different. You'd have to characterize ear variations that are relevant to earbud sound and put people in different buckets to get consistent results, and then to interpret the results for a specific person you'd have to find out which bucket they're in.

modeless 15y ago

Their methodology doesn't seem very rigorous. It's impossible to do a true double-blind test of earbud sound in isolation because they feel different in the ear and that's likely to affect sound perception.

starwed 15y ago
I'd really be kinda surprised if there wasn't a substantial difference between $10 and $100 headphones. That's not very controversial -- it's the ultra-high end products that have no connection to reality. (Also, they mention Bose is disdained, but I've noticed several times in "lets make fun of audiophile" threads that a lot of people do defend their headphones.)
glimcat 15y ago
Their methodology is rubbish. The fact that they can't possibly be blind invalidates the approach to begin with. But they also didn't remain within one class of device when the physical coupling method does a lot to affect the result. They also didn't do any work whatsoever to research models which are often recommended as being good. If Engadget didn't have such high journalistic integrity, I'd suspect it of being a sideways ad for Bose and Monster.
tzs 15y ago
That's not a problem, since to actually use the things you have to put them in your ears. Hence, if the feel of them affects sound perception, you want to include that.
- modeless 15y ago
  Yeah, but everyone's ears are different. You'd have to characterize ear variations that are relevant to earbud sound and put people in different buckets to get consistent results, and then to interpret the results for a specific person you'd have to find out which bucket they're in.