Which is more expensive, headphones or photography?

This is a divergent problem, which will definitely cause disputes among different players. I've played both and burned a lot of money. Let me briefly say my opinion.

As the saying goes, "hearing is false, seeing is true", which is straightforward, meaning that eyes are more difficult to deceive than ears. As we all know, earphone players have "golden ears" and "wooden ears", which means that everyone's hearing resolution is different. With the increase of age and different maintenance methods, the hearing of the same person at different stages is also different. A 22-year-old whose hearing ability has reached its peak, a set of orpheus may be unparalleled enjoyment for him; But the same equipment is useless to his 80-year-old grandfather with hearing loss.

But the situation is different. Coma, dispersion, purple fringe, noise, depth of field, distortion and saturation are inevitable, no matter myopia, presbyopia or pilots, as long as they are not completely blind. On a slightly larger photo paper, the advantages and disadvantages of the equipment can be seen at a glance.

Take "Side B" (Monster Beats, a sub-brand of headphones owned by Magic Sound, which pursues huge profits and is famous for its low cost and small B on the side of the receiver) as an example. A light user who is not short of money may be satisfied with the bass bombing provided by Side B, but it is absolutely impossible to be satisfied with the photos provided by a 18-55mm SLR as good as a mobile phone.

Therefore, for consumers who have not risen to the level of collectors, photography costs more, because consumers are relatively easy to find the shortcomings and defects of their equipment. Of course, if you have reached the level of connoisseur or collector, then any consumption that rises to the level of ultimate desire is endless.