I can agree that dac+amps make almost no difference, and there is a metric fsckton of snake oil.

I do find that the difference between a pair of 100 euro headphones and 400 euro headphones is quite obvious, though. Can you elaborate a bit?

I think over about 800, the difference is pretty much gone -- with the caveat that might not hold if you're buying a set with a specific freq response in mind (e.g Beyer Dynamics cans tend to boost low and treble a bit, which is good for mixing, or Grados which make acoustic music sound absolutely massive etc)..

I generally agree, but to counter that I have worked in audio studios with full stack audio setups with some of the best professional gear available at the time and the audio that came through even a cheap pair of monitors was better than anything I have heard before or since.

I'd speculate that in audio studios a lot of thoughts/work go into acoustics of the rooms themselves. And it is done by professionals who have to work in that environment every day for several hours.

Yep this. A studio engineer mate of mine recons room treatment is maybe 80% of the difference you can hear.

Not many people are willing to install that much foam panelling, though.

I agree that there is a metric ton of snake oil but make no difference? That’s not true at all. Power consumption and capacitor sizes make tons of difference. Well warmed up Class A amps are great. Sad I don’t own one.

DACs? Beyond a very very cheap entry point they make no difference. Anyone telling you that DAC A is warmer sounding than DAC B is almost certainly a cork sniffer.

Amps, however, obviously have an impact on the sound delivered — especially for high impedance headphones, or those that are otherwise difficult to drive (think some planar magnetically, etc). Again, though, anyone who thinks that relatively powerful amp A is significantly different to equivalently powerful amp B is almost certainly more interested in impressing other people with too much money than how kit actually sounds.

_almost_ no difference. Maybe I just have crap ears, but I’ve tried blind comparing headphone amps and honestly can’t tell any difference between my chord mojo, my schiit Valhalla and my ifi or dragonfly…

They’re all fairly low end though I guess.

True, but I'd argue that the effect only starts to kick in at some point around $400 or so for a pair of headphones. Above that point the curve of performance/price flattens fast and soon you're getting into the esoteric territory of directional cables. But go below that point and the sound quality enters a steady decline noticeable to most experienced listeners- HD 595 were great and inexpensive, but objectively not as good as HD 600. The Momentums sound nice but they're far from perfect. AirPods Pro 2 are amazing, and have solid, respectable sound, but they're far from what really high-end in-ears can get you.

Except at the very low end. The £2 earbuds from Flying Tiger are going to be very bad.

I have some $50 Soundpeats Air3 Deluxe HS earbuds. They have the high end LDAC codec with 14mm drivers (far bigger than your ear canal / drum). Absolutely amazing and pass all the Sonus Faber tests [1] to these 59 year old ears.

[1] https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnSJ7ZX2HMpsNMKj8IH...

I think it depends how much of a hobby hifi is for a person. I like headphones that have a flatter frequency response, and then just boost up what I like for the songs I listen to. On the other hand I also very much enjoy open backs as the bass has room to evacuate and the music is a bit more spatial, which in some stereo mixes makes the songs you are already accustomed to sound fresh again.

I have a pair of $20 202 IIs that sound very good. Easily comparable to much more expensive headphones. I stopped using them about a year ago as I switched to wireless headphones, but if all you want are simple wired cans you can get great sounding audio cheap.