A Long Conversation about Proper Headphone Recommendations

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Admin note: This was split from a thread about high-end headphones. Its off-topic but still a somewhat relevant discussion. The original thread.

Bose isn't crap at all. What makes you say that? All Bose equipment I've tried, I've loved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Joshdude said:
Bose isn't crap at all. What makes you say that? All Bose equipment I've tried, I've loved.
Any audiophile who's worth his salt knows that Bose equipment sounds awful. It's common knowledge. I've personally tried a pair of Triports myself and I've heard $15 Labtec behind the neck headphones that sound better.
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Well I'd be lying if I called myself an audiophile. I personally use Apple's in-ear headphones, and they satisfy me. I didn't mean to imply that anyone was wrong or that Boses are the best around or anything. I was merely suggesting some headphones that I perssonally enjoyed and that were a bit cheaper than the options being put forth.
And Labtecs are a joke. There's no way they sound as good as Triports. You may have been trying to make a point, but anyone could tell the difference. There's no way you could compare them to the Triports.
 

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Yeah I was exaggerating. The point is though, you probably should not be recommending headphones to people who are obviously looking for high fidelity sound because what you value in a headphone (unrealistic, inaccurate, thumpy bass) is so completely different than what people who are willing to invest a large amount of money want to hear.

(And to say that they are the best headphones under $500 when you haven't heard many other headphones in the upper end of that range is really pushing it.)
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
I didn't say they were the best. At all. And I'm sorry for having an opinion and expressing it. I thought that was allowed here.
 

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
I will quote the thread title for you as you seem to have missed it:
"Best headphones for $500 or less"

I believe what this man is looking for are the best headphones for $500 of less. In this thread, people have been replying with their opinion of the best headphones for $500 or less. When you replied, it was assumed that the headphone you mentioned was your opinion of the best headphone of $500 or less since you did not say otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Ok but did you happen to read my post? It said, "These are pretty good." Now from that statement, you should infer that I didn't mean best. For some reason you didn't. You also seem to feel that any reply within a thread is bound by the title. So because the word "best" is in the title, any reply therin has to do with the best? Oh, ok it all makes sense now.
 

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Heh if they weren't the best, why would you post them in this thread? He is looking for the best headphones in a certain price range. Not headphones that can be described as "pretty good". This is of no use to him.

It's like posting a Kia Rio in a thread titled "Best car for $300,000 or less". What use is it to the thread poster saying the Kia Rio is "pretty good"?
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Why not? Doesn't "$300,000 or less" incorporate less? So I can mention any car that has a price below $300,000, right? So what's the problem with mentioning a Kia? I might have driven a Kia and loved it, and now I'm recommending it. Not necessarily to the thread started only, but to anyone. So pointing out the Bose headphones even though they aren't the most expensive or "best" in your opinion doesn't mean I can't reccomeend them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

ginalee said:
I just feel happy for those who can afford to spend so much money on headphones...
See? Not everyone looking at the replies is looking for the most expensive headphones. Couldn't my information be useful to people who don't want the buy the flashiest headphones? I think it could.
 
Last edited:

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Because you didn't say the Bose phones were the best. You said they were "pretty good". What I'm saying is that "pretty good" has absolutely no use for someone looking for the "best".
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
I think that the Bose Triports are the best $150 headphones. Personally, that's what I think. Someone browsing this thread may have $150 to spend, and may happen upon my suggestion. Then they may buy the Boses and be very happy with them. So where's the problem with me posting that? Is it that my reply doesn't directly benefit the thread starter ONLY? I don't see that as a problem. And I think it's weird that you do.
 

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Joshdude said:
I think that the Bose Triports are the best $150 headphones. Personally, that's what I think.
Joshdude said:
Ok but did you happen to read my post? It said, "These are pretty good." Now from that statement, you should infer that I didn't mean best.
Looks like you're all over the place on this one. But I'll let this slide and go on to why your recommendation distresses me.

Basically, most people who are looking to pay a large sum of money on earphones or headphones want good sound. Or at least the best that they can get for their budget. Good sound is clean, detailed, accurate, dynamic, realistic, and impactful. All at once. Now, you can't attain anywhere near this kind of sound with a system that costs anything less than tens of thousands of dollars. And even at that stage people are constantly striving for better sound.

So at the $500 range, it is essentially a balancing act. No headphone/earphone has all of these qualities. You have to find the headphone that has the best balance of these qualities in terms of what suits your listening preferences best. This is the crux of the Shure e3c vs. Etymotic ER4 debate for example. Of the qualities I mentioned above, the ER4 is clean, detailed, dynamic, and accurate. And the e3c is dynamic, impactful and kind of realistic. For some people (like myself) the former is more important, and for others, the latter is more important. It's largely a subjective decision.

Where I'm getting at is that the Bose headphones you mentioned have none of the qualities I mentioned above. They are impactful, I admit, but the listener doesn't get impact on the notes that should be impactful, but rather only the lower bass tones. So suggesting this headphone to people who want to spend a large amount of money on audio equipment is greatly misleading since it does not have any of the qualities that are a part of "good sound".

While there may be the odd person who values thumpy bass and inaccuracy so much that they are willing to spend hundreds of dollars to obtain it, I can guarantee that most people who would read a thread like this value "good sound" in some way. It might be the realism and impactfulness that gets them going, or it could be the accuracy and detail. You can better serve these people by recommending a headphone that exhibits many of the qualities that "good sound" consists of rather than a headphone that is much further away from the qualities "good sound".

I hope I have explained myself thoroughly. If not feel free to question further.
 
Last edited:

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
I won't justify my 2 comments that you quoted. Anyone can see that they have different meanings.
I have already established that I am not an audiophile. I don't pay as much attention to accuracy, impactfulness, balance, tweaking, chirping, scraping, and the kitchen sink as much as you obviously do. That said, I wouldn't ever spend $500 on headphones. That's just too much for me. I tried the cheap-by-comparison Bose Triports and was impressed. Now you audiophiles don't like them. Fine. I didn't ask if you did, nor did I say that they were the best headphones. I said that they were pretty good. And I do think they're pretty good. They are, in my opinion, a cheaper yet still good alternative to $500 headphones. I have almost no knowledge of most of the headphones that have been recommended above. I just know that I've tried a pair and that I've liked them, so I was passing on my experience. Just because you don't like those headphones doesn't mean no one else does. So if only recommending headphones that YOU like is a way to "better serve these people," then maybe only you should make recommendations.
 

br-

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
365
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Joshdude said:
I won't justify my 2 comments that you quoted. Anyone can see that they have different meanings.
:rolleyes:
Joshdude said:
They are, in my opinion, a cheaper yet still good alternative to $500 headphones.
Look, I see where you're coming from. You are trying to offer your best-value-for-the-money choice. My point is that this sort of recommendation is useless and unnecessary in a thread where people are willing to spend a good amount of money to receive good sound. If the thread was about good value headphones, or headphones with thumpy bass, then your recommendation would be applicable. But in this case it's redundant reply. I don't personally care that it's redundant and out of place, just that I find it misleading for the reasons I explained in the previous post.
Joshdude said:
Just because you don't like those headphones doesn't mean no one else does. So if only recommending headphones that YOU like is a way to "better serve these people," then maybe only you should make recommendations.
This is quite the Straw Man! You know I never made such an argument. I said that people should make recommendations that are close to what "good sound" is when the thread involves a great deal of money. Not just the type of sound that I personally enjoy.

For instance, I've owned Shure e3cs for about a month. I personally dislike their sound and would never buy them again, but I do respect people who prefer it for it's sonic qualities. It has some qualities that are a part of what "good sound" is, so I don't mind when people recommend it. I may express that I don't prefer them, but I certainly do respect people who do and consider it a valid recommendation for this thread. I explained in my previous post that why the e3c makes the cut and the Triports don't is solely because the e3c exhibits some qualities that "good sound" consists of, and the Triports do not. It has nothing to do with me liking or disliking the headphones.
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Of course it does. Whether or not headphones "make the cut" in your opinion is based on whether or not you like them. The fact that you don't like the Triports means that they don't make your cut. Your opinion of "good sound" may be different from other peoples'. I know I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a pair of Triports and a $500 pair of headphones. Knowing that, of course I would prefer the Triports. They don't sound bad to me, so why can't I recommend them? Because the info is useless to the thread starter? I certainly don't see a problem with buying $150 headphones when they sound the same as $500 ones, and I don't see a problem with stating that. You're basically telling me not to recommend headphones that I have liked simply because they don't make your "cut." So saying that you haven't made that argument is false.
 

jwc110869

Technology made me fat
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
3,284
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Rochester, New York, USA
This is the BEST stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you BusinezGuy for starting this innocent thread / fist fight!!!!!!!

Where is my popcorn?

And where is baggss?
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Yes! See, this is what makes the forums interesting! We need more of this! I'm certainly having a good time, as I love to argue.
 

jwc110869

Technology made me fat
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
3,284
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Rochester, New York, USA
Yes this is great, but................

Poor BusinezGuy is going to check in, and see 15 or so more posts and get excited about all the help he's going to get with "Rich Guy" headphones, and instead get a page and a half of angered ramblings.

But its still great.
 

Joshdude

One cool dude, indeed.
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
1,563
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Long Beach, California
Hahaha that actually may be the best part, seeing how he reacts. I acknowledge that I have basically ended my argument by saying how much fun it is. No way will dr- take me seriously now, or even continue the argument. Oh well, I know I'm right. :D
 
Top