Quote:
Couldn't you have done some kind of quantitative analysis? That was the most rediculous review I never read.
I second that opinion. What an idiot. i could see this guy reviewing a Ferarri and saying.."oh its a fast car and handles nice." I guess 0-60 times and 0-100 times, braking, skidpad and so forth are just numbers that give me no idea of the how the car rides.
Fricking fool.
What a schmuck.
Look,... how about giving me frequency response so that people that are audio saavy enough to know what a good response curve looks like could make a decision as to whether it was worth their time to hear them.
For instance. looking that the Frequency response of the ultimate Ears hybrid model on their website... I see a huge dip in lower midrange which would sound lousy. Looking at the UE-10 I see that the sound has some dips and so forth but they are not long pronounced dips which are IMHO much more audible as suckouts- which sound like you are missing something.
So I went to Shure's website ...why...? because I still hear 20hz- 20khz (yes I was recently tested at 43 years old) and when listening to products with steep rolloff at 15=16khz I really notice a lack of sparkle and presence. It is like I am listening through a heavy curtain.
So I expected a review with a measured frequency response at the very least.
This reviewer is such an amatuer BS artist it robs this entire site of credibility. It's like a 6 year old doing wine tastings- the guy is just guessing and has no idea what a good reference is , how to quantify it, or how to describe it.
A pity really.
Of course I am suspicious of Shure for not posting their specs.
IMHO most IPOD lsiteners don't know what to listen for as they ripped so much at 128kbs...the 128kbs sound has become their reference. They notice more bass- or the tooth etching titanium tweeter treble (horrible) and think that more is better. Well, perhaps that is fine for club music (which I also enjoy) but if you reallyw ant to hear it ALL- you must have good smooth frequency response. It is a lot easier to EQ a steady rise, than a choppy waveform.
I do care about sound, however, and will easily spend $700- $2200 for a set of headphones that delivers isolation and chills down my spine everytime.
There are a lot of people out there who won't spend more than $2 for a beer, $15,000 on a car and wouldn't bother ot take the girl of their dreams out for a dinner costing more than $35. I don't think of these people as frugal or cheap.... I just find them boring, bland, and devoid of excitment. Their idea of a beautiful woman is Britney Spears.
I say- let them keep their spending limits to $45 , let them enjoy summer vacations on the Jersey Shore, and dinner at Applebees, and Sketchers sneakers. But don't criticize me for spending $15000 on an epic heli ski vacation, dinner at Le Cirque, or wearing $400 Gucci diving loafers.
There are things in this world worth spending money on. things that last for more than 10 years should get a larger budget- particularly things that don't degrade with age.
You spend 1/3 of your life in bed- a good mattress (5 years)
You spend time commuting- a durable quality safe car (12 years- Mine is a 1994 E500)
You spend 2 hours a day listening to music- fantastic headphones are a intelligent choice...but only if they deliver fantastic sound. and no a 16khz roll off is not fantastic sound worth more than $150.
Also a higher impedance headphone is easier to drive without bass loss.
This reviewer has a place in reviewing headphones. I say....let him review the ones they give you for free from each airline- that's his restricted niche. They are within his budget.