Not me, once I bought my sundaras I haven't touched my 6xx's in over a year

I'm happy that people are becoming more aware of audiophile bs now

I'm just curious. What would you say is objectively better in an expensive headphone? I want to see a measurable difference that's audible. Something other than frequency response, because like I said you can very easily eq anything below very high frequencies. Transient response doesn't matter so long as the headphone has a response up to 20khz. Group delay is practically inaudible on the sundaras. THD is inaudible on the sundaras. Soundstage has nothing to do with price as it's based on earpad shape, depth, and driver angle. Resolution is not real, it's just frequency response. A "bad resolving" headphone would have a bad frequency response that masks other frequencies in an unnatural way. I just want to know what you think is objectively better. Looking at the LCD-2s, their frequency response is terrible even compared to the sundaras. The only expensive headphones I'd ever buy would be the dan clark stealths.

I know a lot about audio. What is objectively better in a more expensive headphone? I don't believe there's anything different besides frequency response and that is easily fixed with eq.

This looks so goofy lol

What exactly is "better quality" in a $1000 headphone vs a $300 headphone?