Originally posted by: touchmyichi
OK, lets break some things down here. First, you really don't think there's a reason why those headphones are 30 dollars now? At a 200 dollar price point those would be absolutely absurd and at your 90 dollars they are stomped by the sennheiser 4xx and lower 5xx series that have a much higher quality build and better singular drivers. Heck, even at 30 I think I would still take the Koss KSC-75's over them (although in all fairness, those are insanely underpriced in terms of SQ for $). Also, sure 100-150 is considered entry level. But that doesn't exclude the fact that high quality components for that price. It's kind of like saying that you don't own a REAL dslr if you buy a Rebel Xti as opposed to a 30D, even though you kinda do. I don't really think the shure's can be compared to the Ezonics, comparing buds to over-the-ear headphones is apples to oranges.
Ah...another one of those arguments from ignorance. You don't *state* your point, you just *imply* it: "there's a reason why those headphones are 30 dollars now," but then you also never bother to explain it or back it up. What is the "reason"? Are you really willing to assume that free market pricing always reflects *technical quality*? The inverse of that statement (i.e. the "negative") is what you're leaving me to prove.
Speakers don't "improve" at the same rate that video cards or even CPUs do, yet people expect them to, so, if a product has been on the market for a few years, most likely it'll be dirt cheap regardless of whether the quality is dirt cheap.
Note that I'm not speaking of the "audiophile" market of speakers, for example, which is a different market specifically catering to consumers with high (presumed) technical knowledge. Conversely, the consumer audio market's prices are known for being wacky. You'll get wildly inflated name brand prices on crap and excellent stuff will be underpriced or thrown in the bargain bin when it hasn't sold in a while.
By contrast, the 5.1 headphone market began as marketing gimmicks and is still dominated by this perception. Consumers simply don't have much in the way of technical knowledge about the superiority of one set of 5.1 headphones over another. The audiophiles are too busy spouting plausible-sounding crap to actually examine specific 5.1 headphones and give thorough reviews.
"Free market" pricing only indicates *technical superiority* when consumers have the knowledge to make informed purchases.
FYI, I have a pair of ~$100 sennheiser's and of koss's, too. The former I bought for my sister and listened to them to ensure that they worked as advertised. The latter I used for years (and have the head indentation to "prove" it--ouch!), replaced them with the Shure earbuds, and then moved to the E-zonics. Some months ago I tried on the Koss's and found that the E-zonics had better quality. I miss the isolation of the closed-ear Koss's and in-ear Shures (using triple-flange, which kills outside noises); but the Koss's weight, heat, and lack of good bass simply outweighs the isolation, and the Shure's bass was nothing in comparison to the E-zonics (and yes, I got a very good seal).
The reason I compared the Shure E3c's (earbuds) to the E-zonics (earphones) was that the highs and mids on the E3c's are known to be *very good* for *its* price range regardless of *phone type. The fact that the E-zonics, now at $30, compared favorably to the E3c's is a *plus* for the E-zonics. The problem with earbuds is *bass*. Would you have felt better if I'd put the words "of course" after the original comment about the bass?
:roll:
But enough of that, let's go to the driver issue. I'm not disagreeing at all that real 5.1 headphones can be manipulated to obtain surround sound and you certainly did a valid job of explaining how this works, the question is if its worth it or superior in any way. I think you underlooked the quote I posted from head-fi. Instead of arguing against his point, you said that audiophiles were full of BS- OK well maybe sometimes , but the guy made a valid point that deserved to be addressed. Let's look at his claim, which makes perfect sense. Headphones are located a few centimeters from your ears, having multiple drivers in one headphone is completely unnecessary. A single driver can easily be manipulated to to provide the full array of surround sound. Furthermore, you don't think any quality is sacrificed by throwing in multiple (probably cheap) drivers? I think that's a pretty logical assumption. From my personal experiences, my combination has created a terrific surround sound environment. Again, doing this with the right source is really really easy, games don't really require much of a headphone to achieve this. This is why I really do think your headphones are probably fine from a gaming perspective, yet not superior in any way (making the entire "5.1" thing kinda pointless). Again, what it comes down to is how these preform in music- which I'm guessing is something that doesn't match up.
Hello? I listen to music nearly the entire time I'm at my computer, which is at least eight hours a day. Classical, rock, new age, pop, and (occasionally) rap when they're decent. If these 5.1 headphones didn't have good music quality, I wouldn't be using them, and I wouldn't have recommended them. Again, you're arguing from ignorance, basing your arguments on erroneous assumptions about me. I get the distinct impression that according to you, I'm *always* the "ignorant" little kid who is infatuated with his 5.1 "gimmicks" and needs to be taught how the "real world" works.
:disgust:
The first problem with his "point" is that it's a *hypothesis* which had already been contradicted by personal experience (i.e. *experimentation*) before you posted the quotation. But I thought that was obvious, so I didn't mention it. My personal experience was that the multiple drivers in the "real" 5.1 headphones I recommended behaved exactly as one would expect from the 5.1 surround sound speaker test in the Windows speaker setup wizard. You click on the right rear speaker, and it sounds as if its coming from behind you, on the right. No special tricks are needed for this because the headphones actually do have a uniquely addressible driver in that location, and the wearer can easily tell the difference between the separate channels based on the corresponding drivers. Ditto for the other channels.
The second problem with his "point" is that *his logic* is flawed. Sound reaches the ear in what can most simply be described in geometrical terms as a cone, with the tip lying near the eardrum and the base extending out indefinitely in the opposite direction. The further a driver is from the ear, the larger it needs to be to achieve the same volume. That's why a 1-2mm driver inserted in your ear can sound as if it has louder volume than a 5.1 speaker setup one meter away. But you already knew this, right? For similar reasons, the further your surround speakers are from your ear, the wider the distance between the speakers must be to keep the same amount of separation. This is true whether we're working in meters or millimeters. So saying, "Headphones are located a few centimeters from your ears, having multiple drivers in one headphone is completely unnecessary," is nonsense.
As for the claim, "A single driver can easily be manipulated to to provide the full array of surround sound," that's not even been born out by the audiophile community itself. Why do they buy surround sound speaker setups in the first place if--extending the logic--"[two large speakers] can be easily manipulated to provide the full array of surround sound"? The required distances between the speakers and from the speakers to your ears are relative to each other. At small distances such as in headphones, you have tiny drivers, so the separation between the drivers is still quite necessary for relatively accurate surround sound--even though it's only a single centimeter of distance between the drivers, the drivers' size and distance from the ear are both on that same tiny scale.
Finally, when someone tries to make a *point*, it's *their job* to substantiate the hypothesis--not my job to disprove the hypothesis.
You do have one advantage, in that I can't find a single professional review on these headphones- meaning that I've been assuming all of this. Although there is a very brief one, it's very amateur and doesn't make any sort of comparisons or professional testing. You could say that they are perhaps an ignored gem, but I really doubt that.
Well, that would be *your problem*. I'm concerned with erasing the negative view of me with which you left readers of this thread; I am *not* concerned with your *own* negative views of me or what I posted. In the future, if you wish to elicit information from me, I would suggest asking politely instead of listing doubts and expecting me to address them for you.
The obscure 10-20 dollar Koss ksc 75's were scoped and became a huge hit last year with pretty much no advertising, so I would say that the quality headphones are certainly found.
The fact that one such pair was successful must automagically mean that all such pairs will be successful. /sarcasm
I'm also curious about the build quality of those, the padding looks pretty nonexistent and fatiguing- ergonomics are extremely important as well (ask anyone who owns some grados ). And yeah, I understand that your headphones are not badly priced right now, but for myself, these differences matter. It's the same thing with digital cameras, you wouldn't buy some polaroid 10 megapixel from woot for 100 bucks, right? I think the same analogy works for headphones, it's really worth your while to invest in a reputable headphone line, as it is something that will probably have extensive use. For things as sensitive on quality as these, there isn't really a cheap way out if you want all of the above.
Since I have actually *used* the headphones in question, you might try *asking* some polite questions about my experiences instead of just accepting your first impressions. In my experience guessing at the usability of headphones from product graphics on the web is a good way to waste money--or miss out on a good deal. Even wading through product reviews to determine things like "weight" and "ergonomics" can have completely contradictory responses.
Reputable dealers sometimes put out crap. Doesn't matter what market we're talking about: Ford compacts, Dell LCDs, Apple laptops, IBM hard drives, etc.--all have their large dips in quality and service on certain products. Investing in a "product line" is a bad idea, IMO.
I'd spend $100 on a camera if that's all I need for a vacation and some family events. Blowing 2-3x that would be a waste of money. Now, if my living depended on taking good pictures, that would be different. $150 is my personal upper limit for headphones, so I was pleased with my Koss's, E3c's, and then even more pleased with the E-zonics. If all you're doing is listening to music and the occasional DVD, then your $150 might be better spent elsewhere. If you want to change the OP's mind about his intended focus, why don't you argue with him?
But I really don't see why your personal needs are relevant to this particular discussion.
Anyways, nothing personal or anything. Online arguments are fun .
I had no idea that appearing clueless unless I responded was "fun."