3 ms·
No frequency response testing? Mic response testing? Head pressure measurement? Kinda hard to take this seriously as a review when they don't even show anythin
by Saris 3y ago
No frequency response testing? Mic response testing? Head pressure measurement?
Kinda hard to take this seriously as a review when they don't even show anything about performance of the product.
- Veen 3y agoIt's a review in a general interest newspaper for the average headphone buyer. Almost no one who buys headphones knows what any of those things are.
- Saris 3y agoI get that but they didn't even compare to other common headphones, I'm not sure how this helps anyone buy them.
- hyperhopper 3y agoYou are on a site called Hacker News
- smoldesu 3y agoWe're on the site that mocks the guy who suggested a homemade alternative to Dropbox. People here are more product-focused than tech focused, generally.
- aziaziazi 3y agoWe’re on a site where people suggest homemade alternative to dropbox…
- paulryanrogers 3y agoThe AV niche is deep and has plenty of its own communities. HN has a technical audience spanning many niches, yet not all of us are familiar or interested in the finer points of AV hardware.
- alexvoda 3y agoYet expecting the HN audience to be curious and to criticize a review for laking scientific precision when it was posted here is very much in line. We should strive to be more curious and to demand more science.
- NoboruWataya 3y agoA Guardian review that dove deep into the science behind the headphones would be a worse review, in that it would be less useful to its target audience (who mostly don't know or care about that). Maybe your objection isn't with such a review appearing in the Guardian but rather with it appearing on HackerNews. That's fair, however, to me, what is interesting about this post is that the Guardian (again, a widely-read, general interest newspaper) is reviewing the Fairbuds (a new product pushed by a fairly niche company focused on repairability and sustainability). And the review is largely positive. That is, the post is interesting as a reflection of social acceptance of this product and not as an exploration of the science behind the product.
- mcv 3y agoA lot of people on HN care about repairability. That's probably why a Fairphone product review is more likely to be posted here. If you know of a more technical review of this, please post it.
- hyperhopper 3y agoThat was obviously my point
- mhitza 3y agoExactly. I'm gonna have to wait for the rtings.com review, the only source I use for headphones when the model I'm reviewing is on their site. I'm not aware of any other site (suggestions welcome) that do in-depth product reviews
- jbm 3y ago“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.” 2023 edition. The people who care about those concerns are in a VERY specific bubble, similar to people who argue about differences between the BSDs. I have an 9 year old pair of Bose QC35s and my primary interest is if the noise cancelling dulls the noise on a plane; the exact amount is frankly unimportant. I also care to see if I can replace external parts if they get damaged (flipped my bicycle when a homeless person stepped in front of me; this did a number on my QC35s that I had in my bag. Thankfully all the damage was surface-level and I'm not vain.). I'll only buy fixable electronics going forward.
- gnicholas 3y agoEven if they didn't supply numbers, it would have been nice if they'd compared them against different competitors, instead of just saying they're not as good as the best in the business from Sony/Bose. Those headphones cost a bit more, and not everyone springs for the "best in the business" models anyway. Are these comparable with an older model? How do they fare against the AirPods Max or top-of-the-line Beats? More data points would have made this article much more useful.