Audio Technica ATH-CK100 earbuds cost more than most MP3 players
Audio Technica's new ATH-CK100 "in-ear monitors" (read: earbuds) claim to be the world's smallest and the world's lightest. That may not matter much when they cost around $560 — for that much money I'd want them to be made of an element heavy enough I could always feel its presence.
Instead the ATC-CK100s are made from titanium, have a frequency response of 20Hz to 18kHz, and deliver up to 113db at 23-ohm impedance. Which is to say: these things still cost half a grand.
Music Radar has a little more on the new earbuds, plus the latest across the new Audio Technica product line.
Audio Technica reveals 'world's lightest' earphones [MusicRadar.com]
the latest
latest episodes
"20Hz-18kHz"
Wha? Srsly?
A $12 set of Philips SHE2550 Extra Bass earphones will get you 12Hz-22kHz
If they are claiming to be 'monitors', there'd better be some active noise-cancelling tech going on in there.
23-ohm impedance!?! These things will suck the juice out of any device they're plugged into.
For $40 more, you can get a pair of custom molded Ultimate Ears UE-5 Pro's.
The earbuds they're advertising (both high and low end models) are not intended for live or studio monitoring. The 'monitor' headphones they make are for studio monitoring. The purpose of those is to provide a flat response with minimal bleed for performers standing in front of sensitive microphones. The 'audiophile' headphones are the kind of overpriced gold plated stuff that audiophiles like blowing money on. 113dB is plain stupid. Anything over 95dB is unnecessary.
Noise cancelling is only something you'd want for using on flights or train rides to block out engine noise. Nobody uses noise cancelling stuff in studio situations, as there shouldn't be any ambient noise there in the first place.
Piont one: these are the worlds smallest *triple driver* headphones. That is important, and reading is fundamental.
Point two: frequency response numbers without the all important qualification of how much volume the headphones lose across that range in the extreme highs and lows are MEANINGLESS. This is not how you compare headphone performance.
Point three: although anything over 95 db would be painful to listen to, it is important thy headphones be able to produce higher volumes. It's called headroom, and it keeps headphones from distorting at normal listening volumes. So it's actually useful that it can produce over 110db, so it won't strain to produce the top end of "normal" listening volumes.
Just trying to keep the misinfo to a minimum.
The question is, are they danceable?