Just which is the most expensive headphone amp??
Jan 6, 2007 at 5:37 PM Post #61 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hankins /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I wanted the best possible headphone listening experience I could get. I have the money. Thats why I bought the SDS-XLR. .


i was talking to Ryan today and this was my point, I meant the ego part as in someone who just wants the best to their mind and goes for it, regardless of cost. then again sometimes higher cost is a value to a person also (example would be someone would think a $155,000 watch tells better time then a $5.00 casio..just cause the price is higher.)
I did the same with the B52 as you did with the SP SDS, I knew I was going to be in the preamp market in the future so I went the best of the best RSA had. I knew I wanted the RSA sound,customer service,build quality,anal execution of final product to deliver the best out there..

I think I should of used another word instead of ego, I did not mean it in a negative way but instead of exactly why you and I and others have bought the $$$ products we did. sad fact is I could still be happy with my $700.00 preamp but I wanted the best..
 
Jan 7, 2007 at 6:57 AM Post #62 of 95
Look at jewelry -- basically useless, except to look at -- yet the prices can go high as anything else around (Hope diamond, etc.)
Gold and industrial diamonds are used for things, but most jewelry is just eye candy, yet it has proliferated throughout history.
I don't remember anybody using the word "ego" used when Elizabeth Taylor wore the Hope diamond -- mostly just oohs and aahs.
Art cost a lot, too -- priced an original painting lately, by anyone famous? -- Insanely high, yet those that can buy them do so.
Our stereo equipment, even though it can get pricey, at least serves a useful purpose, BESIDES (in many cases) being eye candy (some of the stuff is so pretty to look at, it most certainly deserves the moniker of "art" -- you've all seen some piece of equipment that "is to die for"!
So whether you spend a bundle of $$$ on jewelry, "objets d'art" in one form or another, a car, yacht, whatever -- all these things are/were made for the enjoyment of civilized persons, for personal enjoyment and pride of ownership. Heck, even relatively un-civilized backward tribes scattered in various places on earth have their prized things that they wear for special occasions.
If you can afford it, go for it, and enjoy it every time you look at it or use it, -- no matter what it is.
Heck, some lucky guys even can afford a "trophy wife" -- real useful eye candy there for sure! *sigh*
cool.gif
 
Jan 7, 2007 at 7:16 AM Post #63 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by silverrain /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Look at jewelry -- basically useless, except to look at -- yet the prices can go high as anything else around (Hope diamond, etc.)
Gold and industrial diamonds are used for things, but most jewelry is just eye candy, yet it has proliferated throughout history.
I don't remember anybody using the word "ego" used when Elizabeth Taylor wore the Hope diamond -- mostly just oohs and aahs.
Art cost a lot, too -- priced an original painting lately, by anyone famous? -- Insanely high, yet those that can buy them do so.
Our stereo equipment, even though it can get pricey, at least serves a useful purpose, BESIDES (in many cases) being eye candy (some of the stuff is so pretty to look at, it most certainly deserves the moniker of "art" -- you've all seen some piece of equipment that "is to die for"!
So whether you spend a bundle of $$$ on jewelry, "objets d'art" in one form or another, a car, yacht, whatever -- all these things are/were made for the enjoyment of civilized persons, for personal enjoyment and pride of ownership. Heck, even relatively un-civilized backward tribes scattered in various places on earth have their prized things that they wear for special occasions.
If you can afford it, go for it, and enjoy it every time you look at it or use it, -- no matter what it is.
Heck, some lucky guys even can afford a "trophy wife" -- real useful eye candy there for sure! *sigh*
cool.gif



Yea - but unlike jewelry, amps and headphones actually have a purpose. And the degree of which that purpose reaches peak performance should be the judge of price.

Rare stones and precious metals are almost a form of currency.

And $100 says Liz Taylor has a bigger ego than most.
 
Jan 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM Post #64 of 95
“Rare stones and precious metals are almost a form of currency.”

Replace “Rare stones and precious metals” with the words Sony R10, Grado PS-1, Senn HE90, Orpheus system.


The funny thing about jewelry is- as rare as diamonds are supposed to be they are sold everywhere- rare in what way? Maybe there’s a perception they are rare but in reality you can buy diamonds anywhere at any price. Ever see the 60-80% off sales at the mall?


There’s a big difference between buying something based on it’s price tag and buying a well executed item meticulous crafted by a professional.

My Yamamoto A-08S was assembled by Yamamoto San himself at a cost of about $500. Did I get a good deal- Hell yeah what’s that guys time worth an hour?


Mitch
 
Jan 7, 2007 at 3:33 PM Post #65 of 95
Womens' facial products: a) there is NO price resistence by women and b) there is no evidence that price and quality are positively correlated.
 
Jan 7, 2007 at 5:22 PM Post #66 of 95
i would like to sell my old version little dot 2 for 1 million. i think it s the most expensive amp. lol
evil_smiley.gif

anyone interested? i can give him a 99% off discount.
tell your friend it s worth 1 million, and your friend will WOW ~~~
eggosmile.gif
 
Jul 17, 2007 at 8:33 PM Post #67 of 95
Sound is such a subjective business, though. And too often we audiophiles make the mistake of thinking that if it costs more then it must sound better even though technically speaking it's rarely the case. The correlation between price and performance is somewhat dubious at best in the high-end in my opinion.

6frtxxs.jpg
 
Jul 17, 2007 at 10:56 PM Post #68 of 95
that's only because the RS-1 sucks. but even i think the RS-1 sounds better than the PX100.

that graph doesn't tell you the details revealed and such.
 
Jul 17, 2007 at 11:11 PM Post #69 of 95
"The correlation between price and performance is somewhat dubious at best in the high-end in my opinion."

And you point is? There's a whole forum of people who doubted the RS-1's but when they actually tried them they were amazed.

Some of the Best sounding things are often the worst measuring ones. When you listen to music with test equipment and not emotion then just give up and find another hobby.


Mitch
 
Jul 18, 2007 at 6:23 AM Post #70 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dept_of_Alchemy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Sound is such a subjective business, though. And too often we audiophiles make the mistake of thinking that if it costs more then it must sound better even though technically speaking it's rarely the case. The correlation between price and performance is somewhat dubious at best in the high-end in my opinion.

6frtxxs.jpg



Well, a Frequency response graph don't tell you the whole truth.
There are more to it than numbers on a piece paper...
rolleyes.gif
 
Jul 18, 2007 at 6:36 AM Post #71 of 95
graphCompare.php


The AKG K601 and Sennheiser Orpheus system are pretty much identical (Despite the ~$14000 difference in price). The K601, Orpheus, ER-4P, and DT880 all sound pretty much the same, with the only noticeable variation occurring in the upper treble.
 
Jul 18, 2007 at 7:28 AM Post #72 of 95
I call complete bunk on that graph. I've heard an HE60 off the Orpheus, DT880, and K601. They don't sound anything alike, they all have very different bass, mid-range, and treble responses, not to mention huge soundstage differences.
 
Jul 18, 2007 at 7:35 AM Post #73 of 95
1. Individual utility is non-comparable: It is not possible to compare my happiness with yours in listening to the same piece of music with the same equipment.
2. Money exchanges do not measure utility changes, except under very restrictive conditions, because changes in utility are filtered through the individual's marginal utility of income to arrive at the marginal price measure.
3. Nevertheless, there are money measures of "value" that are comparable between individuals and which do measure how much money an individual must be compenssated to accept a bad or would be willing to pay to accept a good (holding utility constant).

We may indeed place a value in something we don't buy, but unless we see the money or can measure how the individual's behavour changed in "consuming" the good, it is very hard to know if the estimate of individual valuation is correct.

In economics, nothing has intrinsic value.

The more practical and painfull issue is paying $250 for an amp that sounds like crap and then breaks down forever shortly after that!
 
Jul 18, 2007 at 12:23 PM Post #74 of 95
I spent the day at work getting all excited about having just ordered a Darkvoice 332... my first entry into headphone amp wonderment..

I guess it's all about perspective...
wink.gif


Cans: Beyer DT 990 Pro, DT 770 pro, Grado SR-80
 
Oct 17, 2007 at 10:30 AM Post #75 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by Asr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I call complete bunk on that graph. I've heard an HE60 off the Orpheus, DT880, and K601. They don't sound anything alike, they all have very different bass, mid-range, and treble responses, not to mention huge soundstage differences.


We seriously need better ways to measure things.
frown.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top