3 ms·

The Koss headphones are the good headphones. Better than the Beats headphones at least. And yes, with quality headphones, the equalizer can do some of the work

The Koss headphones are the good headphones. Better than the Beats headphones at least. And yes, with quality headphones, the equalizer can do some of the work. But it's generally better to have headphones that match your hearing, so you can focus on the fine tuning with the equalizer instead of trying to brute force against a major difference.

jacquesm 5y ago
This is true. I have a Sony noise cancelling one that is pretty good both for music consumption and for piano practice. And that's about the only bit where I'm really picky, digital pianos can - and do - sound wonderful embedded in a piece of music but once they have to pretend to actually be a piano, for practice or to render midi files of previous recordings then suddenly sample quality is so much more important than just for regular playback. I took a long time to decide which digital piano I would buy because I could not find one that felt close enough to the real thing to make me happy to practice on it but eventually found the Yamaha P-515 and it is as close as it gets feel wise and sound wise (but not on the built in speakers, but a set of external monitors). Especially in the low end that gets nasty quickly if you hit a couple of notes with sustain. But that's not a regular listening to music situation. Agreed on trying to 'match your hearing' the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand, and when you're wearing headphones for 8 to 12 hours per day physical comfort becomes a major factor.
- falcolas 5y ago
  > But that's not a regular listening to music situation. We are in a thread about audiophiles. Which I personally identify as (though in the sense of "I care about sound over style", not "I'll spend $5000 power conditioner, I mean, power regenerator"). > the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand There's thousands of brands, each with dozens of offerings. It's easier than you might think to find a set of comfortable headphones that sounds good out of the box. The first trick is to avoid the style brands, since they will favor exceptionally heavy bass since it "sounds good". Beats, Skullcandy, Bose (which is a shame, they used to sound a lot better until recently), etc. Bass is rarely where you lose hearing first. Personally, I recommend starting here, and look for a "Neutral" or "Bright Neutral" signature. https://crinacle.com/rankings/headphones/ https://crinacle.com/rankings/headphones/ https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/ https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Which I personally identify as I hope you are saying that partially in jest. Audiophiles tend to care so much about the gear (and especially about what it cost them) they tend to forget about the music. I've seen a couple in my life to date and it was always quite amusing to see them utterly flounder when it came to defining what they like in music if it doesn't help them to show off their gear. By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original that I suspect that the true audiophiles are the people who go to the concerts rather than to sit at home. Nothing like a front row seat to a chamber orchestra or a nice symphony orchestra. And a lot cheaper than high end audio gear, but maybe not quite as practical. Still, for quality and lack of distortion it can't be beat.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      > I hope you are saying that partially in jest. Not at all. "An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction." That describes me fairly well, IMO. Those who spend thousands on silly things are a sub-group of the larger group. It may seem self-defeating to assign myself a label so sullied by marketing sillyness, but I'm beyond being bothered by that. I love audio. > By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original I'd like to offer a counter point to this. Just like Charles M. Russell's photographs, the raw recording does not reflect the final vision of the artist. Even the sounds heard at a live rock concert have been manipulated by effects pedals, digital synthesizers, overdriven analog amplifiers, and so forth. So in a way, the final mix as heard through studio headphones or monitors and approved by the artists is the most authentic version of a song available. As such, what I need to do to hear their version is merely reproduce the equipment they used (which doesn't require a ton of money).

jacquesm 5y ago

This is true. I have a Sony noise cancelling one that is pretty good both for music consumption and for piano practice. And that's about the only bit where I'm really picky, digital pianos can - and do - sound wonderful embedded in a piece of music but once they have to pretend to actually be a piano, for practice or to render midi files of previous recordings then suddenly sample quality is so much more important than just for regular playback. I took a long time to decide which digital piano I would buy because I could not find one that felt close enough to the real thing to make me happy to practice on it but eventually found the Yamaha P-515 and it is as close as it gets feel wise and sound wise (but not on the built in speakers, but a set of external monitors). Especially in the low end that gets nasty quickly if you hit a couple of notes with sustain. But that's not a regular listening to music situation. Agreed on trying to 'match your hearing' the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand, and when you're wearing headphones for 8 to 12 hours per day physical comfort becomes a major factor.

falcolas 5y ago
> But that's not a regular listening to music situation. We are in a thread about audiophiles. Which I personally identify as (though in the sense of "I care about sound over style", not "I'll spend $5000 power conditioner, I mean, power regenerator"). > the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand There's thousands of brands, each with dozens of offerings. It's easier than you might think to find a set of comfortable headphones that sounds good out of the box. The first trick is to avoid the style brands, since they will favor exceptionally heavy bass since it "sounds good". Beats, Skullcandy, Bose (which is a shame, they used to sound a lot better until recently), etc. Bass is rarely where you lose hearing first. Personally, I recommend starting here, and look for a "Neutral" or "Bright Neutral" signature. https://crinacle.com/rankings/headphones/ https://crinacle.com/rankings/headphones/ https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/ https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Which I personally identify as I hope you are saying that partially in jest. Audiophiles tend to care so much about the gear (and especially about what it cost them) they tend to forget about the music. I've seen a couple in my life to date and it was always quite amusing to see them utterly flounder when it came to defining what they like in music if it doesn't help them to show off their gear. By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original that I suspect that the true audiophiles are the people who go to the concerts rather than to sit at home. Nothing like a front row seat to a chamber orchestra or a nice symphony orchestra. And a lot cheaper than high end audio gear, but maybe not quite as practical. Still, for quality and lack of distortion it can't be beat.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    > I hope you are saying that partially in jest. Not at all. "An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction." That describes me fairly well, IMO. Those who spend thousands on silly things are a sub-group of the larger group. It may seem self-defeating to assign myself a label so sullied by marketing sillyness, but I'm beyond being bothered by that. I love audio. > By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original I'd like to offer a counter point to this. Just like Charles M. Russell's photographs, the raw recording does not reflect the final vision of the artist. Even the sounds heard at a live rock concert have been manipulated by effects pedals, digital synthesizers, overdriven analog amplifiers, and so forth. So in a way, the final mix as heard through studio headphones or monitors and approved by the artists is the most authentic version of a song available. As such, what I need to do to hear their version is merely reproduce the equipment they used (which doesn't require a ton of money).