Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NormalAccounts t1_iy6ji1q wrote

Freq response is like the color tonality of your TV, resolution is how many pixels it has. I often wonder why this is so hard for peeps here to understand - there's even charts to measure "resolution" in terms of accuracy of various frequencies over time: waterfall charts. In those you can see which freqs have more decay. High resolution headphones have shorter decays. Planars have short bass decays for instance. To simplify: Freq response is a 2D snapshot of a 3D scene. Resolution requires that snapshot to be measured over time with how accurately it moves air precisely within that freq range.

Much of this "freq response is everything" I feel is wrapped up in classism (these $1k "high resolution" headphones can't possibly be worth it, especially because I can't afford it) and confirmation bias than anything else.

5

TheFrator OP t1_iy6kn93 wrote

"inverted snobbery" is the term you're looking for. And for the most part I agree. A lot of people seem to think confirmation bias only exists at the expensive end of audio but it works both ways.

And there are some phenomenal headphones that are 80% of what the flagships do for an order of magnitude less in cost. There's a reason I keep 660s and DT1990s around.

3

NormalAccounts t1_iy71zxb wrote

Huh TIL. Yeah that's it precisely. Also still have my HD6XX around too and they are great

2