What's new
Carbonite

South Africa's Top Online Tech Classifieds!
Register a free account today to become a member! (No Under 18's)
Home of C.U.D.

HeaDphone Discussions. (Audiophile and Gaming)

Saw a review where the guy said that the Apple AirPod max is better audio wise then the XM5 but he can’t justify the price difference.

I was also considering the Focal Bathys that is said to have an amazing audio quality but they are even more expensive than the Apple Max.

audio quality is a subjective thing - most of the time you can use EQ to change how you hear the sound AND even if that doesnt help you, the issue with Apple is that then the apple stuff does not play half the formats that the Sony does so IMHO i would rather definitely get the Sony - i have heard a few of the Apple items - none of them suited my taste or preferences - and they definitely were out of the range of my wallet

the Focal is probably an example of the stuff that is really world class at what it does but if it doesnt play all the formats then its also probably at a disadvantage in terms of complete utility - i would want audio that is as close to lossless as possible - and my DAP is LDAC capable so the Sony playing LDAC would probably beat the Focal playing SBC or AAC - so its all relative including the quality bit ..... playing all the formats gives you a shortcut to gain superior sound quality - so sometimes the cheaper thing may still land up being the better thing with all factors considered - thats not to discount what products like the Focal are capable of doing - but even being the best at SBC might still land up being inferior in every regard to just being able to play LDAC
 
Apple stuff used to (not sure if it still does) play lower quality with non-Apple devices because they "don't support AAC codec" or something silly. So if you use an Android, I would avoid Apple AirPods.
 
Apple stuff used to (not sure if it still does) play lower quality with non-Apple devices because they "don't support AAC codec" or something silly. So if you use an Android, I would avoid Apple AirPods.
People say that the use of lower quality codecs makes an imperceptible difference.

They do say that Apple makes their AirPods basically apple only by restricting firmware updates to only be enabled using iPhones. I think not being able to see the AirPod battery life was also one.

I looked at all the DACS/codecs and they all pretty much work fine.

I do like having the potential for LDAC with Sony but I use an Apple iPhone so I can’t make use of LDAC as is.
 
People say that the use of lower quality codecs makes an imperceptible difference.

They do say that Apple makes their AirPods basically apple only by restricting firmware updates to only be enabled using iPhones. I think not being able to see the AirPod battery life was also one.

I looked at all the DACS/codecs and they all pretty much work fine.

I do like having the potential for LDAC with Sony but I use an Apple iPhone so I can’t make use of LDAC as is.

anyone who says that SBC can sound like aptX and LDAC has cauliflowers for ears - SBC is bad under most circumstances - it is why many people say Bluetooth sounds terrible - it is dull and lifeless and i can hear it a mile off

i once specifically bought an amp that had built in bluetooth - i wanted the convenience and i thought that i could have lived with the "seemingly" imperceptible differences - until i listened to it - i then sold the amp within three months of getting it after hearing SBC to buy an amp without Bluetooth because i could add a DAC with Bluetooth capability and the higher codecs to any other amp without built in Bluetooth - so i sacrificed R2000 for three months of use to put more money to get another amp with better specs and no built in crappy Bluetooth capability

IMHO SBC is close to useless - i would rather not have anything than force myself to listen to SBC ..... thats my story and i'm sticking to it - OH and my android based DAP Digital Audio Player ..... the Fiio M11 is LDAC capable and i have compared LDAC to the the other codecs ...... it actually makes SBC sound like "shit gone bad for months" ..... literally" the difference between LDAC and aptX may not be massively remarkable but trust me SBC is out of the picture for me personally as a usable codec ..... it may differ for you because of your own preferences but in terms of what i'm looking for the codecs make a fair amount of difference and i can hear it (and its not a placebo)

also besides my DAP my android phone is also LDAC capable so i reckon my circumstances definitely differ to yours so if i was choosing a headphones now it would have to be the Sony
 
Having just sold some higher end DAC/AMP's and cans and only having a set of XM4's has been a revelation to me. Specifically the ANC part and cutting out background noise, couldn't really care what CODEC or format it uses
 
Having just sold some higher end DAC/AMP's and cans and only having a set of XM4's has been a revelation to me. Specifically the ANC part and cutting out background noise, couldn't really care what CODEC or format it uses
Adjust your EQ using the app to this. I found a similar thread for my XM5 and it improves the sound quite a bit. My friend has the XM4 and he said that it also improved the sound.


Source:
 
@goldfritter I had my eye on a AKG K240 Studio, as well as a Audio-Technica ATH-GDL3 for a long time, then found an SHP 9500 here on Carb last week, jumped on it very quickly.

I'm not sure how OPEN of an Open Back you want?
Update. Got lucky on AVForums on a used deal on an SHP9600 (including a decent BoomPro-style inline boom mic) and decided to just go for it. Based on reviews, the SQ vs. the X2 seemed to be different in subjective ways rather than a "clear" downgrade, despite the price difference.

First impressions (from a non-audiophile with limited experience!) are that the SHP9600 is clearly more neutral, especially with bass - I had always thought the bass was just a little bit above flat on the X2 but now I'm not so sure - I think the X2 might be even more v-shaped than I originally thought, and the bass on the X2 might actually put people off looking for something closer to reference. The SHP9600 doesn't have that issue, much more flat. I can't say there's a difference in the soundstage in the two, both being open and using similar (identical?) drivers.

Overall, on my CTH, I wouldn't say the SHP9600's SQ is in a lower class than the X2. They're both hi-fi headphones - not reference, not audiophile, but certainly not budget. The reasons for the SHP9600's price being lower are all cosmetic, i.e. no suspension band, parts made of plastic rather than metal, no braided cable, etc. The X2 should in theory be more comfortable for these reasons but the higher weight might also put some people off. The SHP also clamps a little bit better. Although the cups touch my ears on the SHP and not on the X2, so that may put some people off.

So overall I'm going to agree with lots of other people around the net that the SHP9600 is a giant-slayer at the price point. Anyone looking for great open backs can happily grab these, and the detachable TRS jack means it's a breeze to convert them into a headset with any BoomPro-style inline boom mic. Pity nobody stocks them in SA but even with shipping and duties they're under R 1 700 to buy on Amazon, and that is pretty damn decent value for money.

Final note, I happened to have a pair of SHP9500 on hand while doing these comparisons, and there is no difference at all in the sound as far as I can tell, the differences are cosmetic again. So everything I've said about the SHP9600 also applies to the SHP9500.
 
Update. Got lucky on AVForums on a used deal on an SHP9600 (including a decent BoomPro-style inline boom mic) and decided to just go for it. Based on reviews, the SQ vs. the X2 seemed to be different in subjective ways rather than a "clear" downgrade, despite the price difference.

First impressions (from a non-audiophile with limited experience!) are that the SHP9600 is clearly more neutral, especially with bass - I had always thought the bass was just a little bit above flat on the X2 but now I'm not so sure - I think the X2 might be even more v-shaped than I originally thought, and the bass on the X2 might actually put people off looking for something closer to reference. The SHP9600 doesn't have that issue, much more flat. I can't say there's a difference in the soundstage in the two, both being open and using similar (identical?) drivers.

Overall, on my CTH, I wouldn't say the SHP9600's SQ is in a lower class than the X2. They're both hi-fi headphones - not reference, not audiophile, but certainly not budget. The reasons for the SHP9600's price being lower are all cosmetic, i.e. no suspension band, parts made of plastic rather than metal, no braided cable, etc. The X2 should in theory be more comfortable for these reasons but the higher weight might also put some people off. The SHP also clamps a little bit better. Although the cups touch my ears on the SHP and not on the X2, so that may put some people off.

So overall I'm going to agree with lots of other people around the net that the SHP9600 is a giant-slayer at the price point. Anyone looking for great open backs can happily grab these, and the detachable TRS jack means it's a breeze to convert them into a headset with any BoomPro-style inline boom mic. Pity nobody stocks them in SA but even with shipping and duties they're under R 1 700 to buy on Amazon, and that is pretty damn decent value for money.

Final note, I happened to have a pair of SHP9500 on hand while doing these comparisons, and there is no difference at all in the sound as far as I can tell, the differences are cosmetic again. So everything I've said about the SHP9600 also applies to the SHP9500.
I'd suggest EQ'ing it with EQAPO and using PeaceGUI on top of that, makes all the difference. Follow this: https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets/ | Philips SHP9500.pdf
 
Thanks, I prefer not EQing stuff and just letting the sound engineer decide how it should sound.
Err, that's not really how it works. EQ'ing headphones is closer to room correction to align to the harman target than changing the sound signature. All you're doing is giving it more voltage at specific target frequencies to be more 'accurate'. I'd suggest having a read through the FAQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/faq/ and this
 
Err, that's not really how it works. EQ'ing headphones is closer to room correction to align to the harman target than changing the sound signature. All you're doing is giving it more voltage at specific target frequencies to be more 'accurate'. I'd suggest having a read through the FAQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/faq/ and this
OK, I'll add that rabbit hole to the end of the list of rabbit holes that I still need to get to the bottom of.
 
Thanks, I prefer not EQing stuff and just letting the sound engineer decide how it should sound.

as alluded to above - that's not how it works - all headphones do not have a neutral sound quality - they are actually all tuned to sound different so nothing actually sounds how the sound engineer of the content decided it should ..... it sounds how the headphone designer wanted it to sound, for example some will have more bass added to their sonic signature and hence will sound bassier than the engineer intended and vice versa - the content can be recorded as neutral as possible but you could listen to the exact same file on a 100 different headphones and it is possible that none of those options will match how the mixing engineer of the content intended it to sound

same argument applies to speakers - so it might even even help to apply some EQ to speakers too and you can get improved results

to put things as simply as possible - a lot of these websites that present you EQ settings for different sets of headphones are an attempt to get most headphones sounding as close to a predetermined response curve that will make them all sound as neutral as possible which makes most headphones sound pretty similar as a end result and then after that everything depends on what the sound engineer did instead of what the headphone designer did

UNLESS

you specifically auditioned headphones and bought a set that matched your preferences ie it could have extra bass and peaky treble or another could have excess midrange and you really liked whatever character that a particular set emphasizes, but then the story about leaving sonic signatures to recording engineers then goes out the window
 
Last edited:
Yeah there's a lot more to it than that, you're right. Otherwise I why would I bother with anything more than something like an H555 instead of my HD800S.

Also on speakers, you really, really should EQ (ie: room correct) otherwise you're leaving a ton of performance on the table.
 
So you guys are saying I should trust the guy who made the EQ preset, more than the engineers who designed the headphones? Why?

Speaker room correction is a different story entirely, because there is a factor at play there that isn't at play with headphones: the space between the speaker and the listener is different in every room, and that layer of interaction can detract from the sound. There is no difference in the space between the headphone and one listener to another (if there were, people wouldn't solve that with EQ, they'd solve it by e.g. applying sound absorbing and diffusing material inside the earcup, analogous to what people install in their rooms when doing room correction with speakers).

There is no such thing as a universal EQ preset that achieves room correction for, say, the B&W 802. Because each room is different, you have to do different room correction each time. What you're suggesting is more like a universal EQ preset at the software/DAC level (or hardware I guess if you have a graphic equaliser) to "correct" what the B&W people "got wrong" when they designed the speaker. And that is not a universally accepted idea, even in head-fi.
 
So you guys are saying I should trust the guy who made the EQ preset, more than the engineers who designed the headphones? Why?

Speaker room correction is a different story entirely, because there is a factor at play there that isn't at play with headphones: the space between the speaker and the listener is different in every room, and that layer of interaction can detract from the sound. There is no difference in the space between the headphone and one listener to another (if there were, people wouldn't solve that with EQ, they'd solve it by e.g. applying sound absorbing and diffusing material inside the earcup, analogous to what people install in their rooms when doing room correction with speakers).

There is no such thing as a universal EQ preset that achieves room correction for, say, the B&W 802. Because each room is different, you have to do different room correction each time. What you're suggesting is more like a universal EQ preset at the software/DAC level (or hardware I guess if you have a graphic equaliser) to "correct" what the B&W people "got wrong" when they designed the speaker. And that is not a universally accepted idea, even in head-fi.
Are you implying that all ears are the same?

Jk but also it's a factor especially for headphones less so for speakers and much less for in ears.

There are sacrifices that need to be made when designing anything and that's on the engineers but it involves the cost of drivers, wiring, time, material choices all that jazz that affects the quality of the sound, in all those fancy ways people like referring to it; soundstage, layering that kak. And then on top of that you have what the audio tuner decides to do with the frequency response, some of it will be limited by the decisions from the design engineers but others will be stuff like use case and company style.

Then the headphone gets to you and you decide you don't like the lack of bass but it's a tuning choice and not an engineering choice. Most Eq profiles will try to adjust to a Harmon or Harmon like graph.
 
Are you implying that all ears are the same?

Jk but also it's a factor especially for headphones less so for speakers and much less for in ears.

There are sacrifices that need to be made when designing anything and that's on the engineers but it involves the cost of drivers, wiring, time, material choices all that jazz that affects the quality of the sound, in all those fancy ways people like referring to it; soundstage, layering that kak. And then on top of that you have what the audio tuner decides to do with the frequency response, some of it will be limited by the decisions from the design engineers but others will be stuff like use case and company style.

Then the headphone gets to you and you decide you don't like the lack of bass but it's a tuning choice and not an engineering choice. Most Eq profiles will try to adjust to a Harmon or Harmon like graph.
Ugh FINE I'll look at the EQ stuff :rolleyes:

You guys are like Jehovah's witnesses but with frequency curves instead of bibles.
 
Ugh FINE I'll look at the EQ stuff :rolleyes:

You guys are like Jehovah's witnesses but with frequency curves instead of bibles.

the idea is to find a guy who tunes toward your preference and when he does give you multiple EQ settings for lots of different headphones - he is using EQ to tune all those headphones to as close as possible to that same EQ curve - so if the headphones is capable of boosting or dropping those frequencies to the extent required the differences in the headphones then become a non factor
also the thing with EQ you can enable it or disable it as you like and its a simple and easy procedure in most music playback apps .... you don't need the EQ applied all the time

besides for my fave preset EQ setting sites i have played around with EQ so much that i can actually get most EQs set to my personal preferences pretty much by ear very quickly and then apply these settings as user presets, but i have to admit that for android based music playback apps the best EQ i have used is on UAPP (Universal Audio Player Pro) - i have user presets for all my headphones and IEMs setup in UAPP on my phone and on my DAP

don't get me wrong - if you really don't want to use EQ or are not comfortable with the idea then totally feel free to ignore it, but then it doesn't allow for the concept that you are hearing the content as the creator intended ..... you definitely are not, and are merely hearing it as your headphone designer intended
 
Last edited:
Been using the OPPO Enco W11 and they are not bad at all.

Jva5WAN.jpg
 
Been using the OPPO Enco W11 and they are not bad at all.

Jva5WAN.jpg
Aye, got these with my Reno8 Pro as well, and they are a far cry better than the Galaxy buds Pro's, albeit somewhat less comfortable after a while.
Case and buds batteries seem to last a helluva lot longer too, about 6hrs vs the 3 I was getting on the Buds Pro's, along with 4 or 5 recharges.
 
My current Sennhesier GSP350s are on their way to the grave, so looking for something new. Sorta want to get away from gaming headphones and get something with studio quality. My budget is about 2.5k to 3k. Let me know if you have any suggestions!
 
My current Sennhesier GSP350s are on their way to the grave, so looking for something new. Sorta want to get away from gaming headphones and get something with studio quality. My budget is about 2.5k to 3k. Let me know if you have any suggestions!


HiFiMan He400Se for R3000. They are amazing entry level planar headphones.
 
My current Sennhesier GSP350s are on their way to the grave, so looking for something new. Sorta want to get away from gaming headphones and get something with studio quality. My budget is about 2.5k to 3k. Let me know if you have any suggestions!
The Sennheiser HD 500-series is in that price range too more or less.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom