Just got one a few days ago. It's pretty decent. I'm mainly am IEM guy, but I wanted to start collecting a couple touted cans too. My brother has long had a K702 and has a Drop Panda too. I could say the 6XX is in the top 5 of the stuff I own, but it's certainly colored, forward, and has some limitations. I know the 600 is supposed to be more neutral. The 6XX is a little bassy, forward, has high level of detail but doesn't do delicacy well and is generally forward and small in sound stage because of it.

Considering how bananas Google is with sponsored spots and prioritizing retailer sites above everything else, Bing is stumbling into a gold mine in the coming years. At the moment, Google is becoming borderline unusable for random searches. The pay to win business model is showing through, and it's turning the tool into garbage. Bing is going to start gaining a whole lot of market share soon.

By fail, you mean what exactly?

Like the bank just closed?

Or like an entire company failed and no longer exists?

I'm trying to figure out what "failure" means here as it's defined on the graph.

It's like the back's in the front.

It's an odd look. It's weird to accentuate the...uh...lower rib cage??? Sure why not. Fashion! Who the heck knows.

She's pretty in it, but that dress is a weird build. Oddly, it kind of reminds me of old Star Trek costumes where it's just a little bit off on purpose.

I glance at those pics for half a second and instantly recognize those aren't real. It doesn't look photographic. It doesn't look drawn. It just looks...off.

You might need to plan to go to a headphone convention and try out a variety. Head-fi is a challenge. I've stuck to IEMs for 20 years and haven't been compelled into full size headphones, so unfortunately I don't have recommendations. This hobby just requires you to listen to a LOT of products just to find the few options that really fit what you seek. There's no magic to this. You just have to listen to a lot of stuff. Something like a CanJam event could be your ticket to experiencing a lot of stuff and really narrow down the field.

It's the same model for cars and houses. It's a model that works great when the market volume is limited. You have limited sales, and you maximize profits to that limited number by focusing almost exclusively at the high end. It's a model that's good for business but forces customers to buy nothing, buy old, or buy into only the high end at exorbitant prices. ALL the in-between stuff is gone.

For video card makers, they have a unique hurdle. They are pushing hard into edge case tech, pushing as far as they can achieve with the physics of materials. And outside of ideological change of structure optimizations and good software optimization, this is really just a game of attempting to produce at the edge of science and do so without massive scrap losses. Worse yet, all the costs are tied into the process of it all, so cards from low end to high end barely cost different. It doesn't cost them hardly anything less to produce a bottom tier video card, but they'll make a lot less from it. Plus they have to be competitive with other brands and older generations of themselves. The push for performance and push for higher cost go hand-in-hand making sure the new stuff remains just barely the better value.

For raw cost, crypto miners and scalpers have played a big part of scarcity, unfortunately. And they are driving real costs well above MSRP. This in turn makes older cards more valuable and pushes up the entire market space as a whole. Everything is expensive just for the sake of being expensive. A few people simply exist to make a pile of money from it. And for these dumb reasons a 10 year old card can be sold for as much as it was bought new a decade ago.

Now our saving grace as PC gamers is that games have long become very flexible in hardware needs. The transition to Steam and the high analytics it brought to manufacturers showed quite starkly how ancient people's hardware had become. Game developers are forced to temper their designs to work on much, much older hardware. This has provided a customer base with a LOT of breathing room for holding onto very old tech or only performing very minor upgrades to retain the ability to play brand new games.

This used to not be the case at all. In the early days games forced hardware development, to the point where every new game was nearly unplayable on anything but the absolute newest hardware. You HAD to upgrade your entire computer every 2 to 4 years just to play anything new. You couldn't simply set graphics to low and magically make an older PC play it. The tech and software advanced way too fast. You could literally spend $3k on a brand new PC, and there was a chance that it could not play the game that was coming out 6 months later. The technology race was that aggressive.

This ground to a halt in the late 90s and early 2000s when this model was no longer viable. It shifted the burden of flexibility on game developers and forced them to slow down and accommodate. Today, you can play current year titles with a 15 year old PC. Not long ago that was unfathomable.

However, what this has also created was this weird vacuum in the hardware world. There actually isn't much driving next generations. You do have commercial users and professionals wanting faster task speeds for simulations, rendering, etc. But outside of that, PC gamers haven't really had drivers outside of high res monitors. There isn't much actually pushing graphics cards these days. Many developers are also bound by the heavy console market that are all stuck in one time period in history, and all these new titles have to work on them too. But for PC folks, the push is pretty much solely monitor resolution, stepping from 1080 to 4k and now into 8k. The need for that isn't even worthwhile. It's just there. And it's about the only thing pushing video cards forward. Sure, there's ray tracing too, but that's a singular use case. You still have developers catering to decade or older tech, so the game itself can never really ever again push the boundaries like it used to. And thinks like 4k, 8k, multi-monitor, etc. are just throughput equations. So the game in today's graphics card world is just that, throughput of pixel volume.

Bang for the buck for me starts at around $150 and is the $150 to $300 range. You can get a lot of really good stuff in this price range.

However, there are better products at a higher price point. The downside is the price isn't really tied to the cost, so you're buying a lot into brand, marketing, and market expectation. However, this does give manufacturers some luxury to do extra, like better materials and construction, better drivers, better accessories, more accessories, better case, etc. It can also buy some engineering and development time. You may put more effort into a flagship product rather than a midrange or low end product with heavier costing constraints.

My top three IEMs I own are $1000 range IEMs. Are they worlds better than my stuff around the $300 range? Not a ton, no. We're talking 3x the price for 10%-20%, and even that percentage is subjective. However, the stuff I have in the $150-$300 range blows the cheaper junk out of the water. Low end stuff is significantly worse. There are a few decent cheap things, but the level of sound quality and performance is always a quite reasonably jump stepping into the real mid tier stuff. I've been in the IEM hobby for 20 years. The cheapest one I own is $100, an old Vsonic GR7. Virtually everything I own or want to own is in the $200 to $1000 range. Again, it's not really a cost thing. It's just how the market's spread out these days. You're just stuck buying a $15 cost to manufacture thing for $200 because...reasons.

Why can't I just paint my Toyota Corolla red and have it drive like a Ferrari?

Nope. But it fits his religious side. He's remarkably driven by that component of himself.

Pence is a very good politician. He could do great if...he wasn't so religiously extreme.

Isn't it nicer to see a full spectrum waterfall plot for decay?

For example, at what frequency is this? Or is this like the aggregate average?

You don't "apply" a Harmon Target. Products are generally tuned to it. This also depends on the type of product. For example, a headphone is tuned differently than a IEM due to how the ear and ear canal modify the frequency response.

Another thing to note is the Harmon Target varies with volume, so a single curve is only suited for a single listening level.

If you want to tune your headphones, I suggest listening to a pink noise track. Run the track at normal listening levels. Then work on the EQ. Usually as set 1kHz at the 0 point and then scale everything else from that. Your goal is to move up and down each of the other frequencies to tune the relative loudness of that other frequency range. You want 2kH, 4kHz, 250Hz, etc. to all sound the same loud as 1kHz. If you're too high in volume in an area, it will sound over pronounced, dominant against the rest of the frequencies. If you are too low in volume in an area, it would sound missing or sucked out. There will be kind of a sound void there where you don't really perceive that frequency range against the rest. You want to move the sliders up and down until each frequency range sounds equally loud, equally present as the others. One note, this test is slightly sensitive to tonal slope as in you can end up with a "flat" sounding setting that's overall tilted bright or warm. The "tuning" especially tuning just the next slider over can sound good/right along a slope. You'll have to kind of step back and compare broader distances too, for example 250Hz with 8kHz and make sure those are in balance with each other too. Play around a bit and spend some time dialing it all in. Also, I suggest doing this more than once. Tune it, and then leave it for a few days. Then come back and retune. Your perception of sound changes over time, and you are also learning what to listen for. It might take a few attempts to really get it settled in well.

Secondarily, the above is only a test of raw loudness. Perceived tonal balance afterwards highly depends on exactly how the headphone produces sound. For example, let's say the headphone uses a driver that is tight and crisp in bass response. The notes are not thick or weighty, but the volume level is there. Because the notes are thin, the overall perception is the headphone will be a little bright even though the actual sound volume is there in the bass. You might actually have to EQ up the bass a few dB to counter the lean bass notes. It can work the opposite way too. You might have harsh or aggressive high frequencies, and as a counter, you might desire to knock down that aggressive high end a touch to make it less edgy. Manufacturers do a lot of this trickery to tweak the end result into a perceived presence that might be realistically quite unbalanced and colored. It might just be the ideal compromise for the characteristics of the driver and product design.

I haven't listened to a DT770, but your ears don't lie.

However, the problem is two fold.

One, you comprehend only upon the sum of your experiences. This goes for both of you by the way. You won't appreciate the capability of something or understand its shortcomings without experiencing the greater breadth.

Two, human hearing is NOT static. Our minds constantly adjust to balance out common sounds. Your mind will "tune" to what you experience a lot, and that sound will become normalized. It can take work and training to actually detuned and be more unbiased. You will also need equipment too. For example when I get new equipment, test, and review I use an array of other headphones as static, known points along a measuring stick. I also use test tones and pink noise tracks to aid with EQing and seeing how the product produces sound and forms the notes. And the process to fully learn and understand a single product well takes weeks of daily listening, testing, and comparing. All of this is done to tune out the bias and accumulate details.

Companies like Logitech make good headphones. They make products that hit center mass in the market space. They are all around good but at the same time not amazing either. They just don't do anything terribly wrong. And for this market space, that performs and sells well. It's also why companies like Steel Series is very popular because they do the same thing.