Sennheiser HD 800 - price control? - Page 10

Wikipedia is for pseudo know-it-alls and those that don't know what they don't know. Misanthropy is a Darwinian way of culling out the genetic misfits. So, what's your problem?

I was not intending to insult you, nor was I responding based on a criticism of some gear I own, as I don't own the HD-800's or Grado RS1's. I was merely suggesting that a statement that you "think" the HD-800 provides Senn with "huge profit margins" is not worthy of much consideration, since you provide no factual basis for such a statement, nor any information that would indicate you would be in a position to calculate all of the costs associated with the HD-800, and that you would have knowledge of the other facts and information that would bear on the issue.

You are not alone, however, in suggesting without any factual basis that various audio companies make "huge" or "exorbitant" profits from their products. You see that statement all the time on this forum, and usually without a scintilla of evidence offered in support of the assertion.

What does that have to do with anything, including pricing? And how does one measure whether something is "3 time better"? Is there some device you can buy that does this?

OK, fair enough. But when do you think sennheiser will be providing us their financial bookkeeping? Of course this will never ever happen. Does that mean we are never allowed to have an opinion? What if the hd-850 retails at $20 000? Are we then allowed to have an opinion that huge profit margins are involved?

Sennheiser will never provide us with with their cost details (of course), so we are left to use our judgement as to what a product costs to manufacture.

Regardless, my argument was principally in response to claims that there have been technological breakthroughs with the hd-800, and this is something that many people also "think" without any "scintilla of evidence offered". In fact, looking at the exploded driver in the marketing literature makes it pretty difficult to pin down any "breakthrough".

So my issue is really that the hd-800 price is often being justified (on head-fi) by reference to the research and the resulting technological breakthroughs involved. The reason I take issue is not to be a jerk, but because I think this sets up a bad scenario where claiming technological innovation with no evidence justifies very high asking prices.

Take this example from the beyer t1: "The new Tesla technology gives the T1 an enormous boost in efficiency. The completely redesigned transducers achieve values of over one Tesla (a unit of measurement for magnetic flux density)"
So if we believe the claim, then somewhere in the driver a 1T field can be measured. Is that a kind of "technology" or is that just a bigger/stronger magnet? According to beyer it's "Tesla Technology".

I want headphone design to be about good engineering, not pseudo-science non-sense. The more we buy into these claims of painstaking research and breakthroughs the more we leave ourselves open to being taken advantage of.

Sennheiser will sell it for $1400 until there are enough people to buy at this price, cost is just a bottom limit factor. When there'll be no demand at this price it will go down.

When they say Tesla technology they aren't referring to Nikola Tesla's work. It's just 1 Tesla the trademark. I have not read any pseudo-scientific information provided by manufacturers about the HD800 or T1. Taking modern day Mammon Amazon.com off my blocked websites for a few moments, I see their HD800 product description is already written by someone walking on pins and needles when it comes to making claims. Still, as this thread shows, there are people to complain.

But we're not talking about a headphone priced at $20,000, are we? And the market for headphones is obviously a competitive market, so the notion that "huge profit margins" are involved would seem to run counter to the basic notion of how competitive markets work, unless there are technological advancements involved, which you deny elsewhere in your post. In addition, anyone who runs a business or has substantial experience in business is well aware of how much it costs to design, develop, manufacture, and market a product.

Look, we're all entitled to our opinions (for the most part nowadays). But that doesn't mean we should not exercise some restraint when voicing opinions when we don't have the facts. That doesn't help anybody, and just distracts from more relevant matters.

Yes, the key word is "judgment," which to my mind involves some objectivity or deliberation in light of the relevant evidence. An even better word might be "discernment." But pulling an opinion of out of thin air hardly amounts to either, with all due respect. I mean, feel free to express it. But then, don't expect not to be called on it.

I can't comment on technological breakthroughs, since I don't own the HD-800. Regardless, assuming arguendo that some folks might be guilty of spewing unsupported assertions about the technology, that is no reason to emulate them and advance baseless assertions about profits. If someone is wrong on the technology, meet the argument head on and refute it.

You mean demand and supply has something to do with pricing? That's heresy man.

Yes, I realize Tesla Technology is a meaningless phrase. That is actually my point. It's clearly misleading people to think that they've developed some kind of technology, when all they've done is measured a magnetic flux of an arbitrary value.

And I do realize that sennheiser's marketing team is very careful not to make claims. All the scientific research and technological breakthrough stuff originates virally (especially here on head-fi). So I'm not criticizing their marketing work at all. In fact the marketing of the hd-800 may be the most successful marketing work for any headphones period. I'm amazed how many different places I'm seeing puff pieces on the hd-800.

Well Beyer had to give their new headphone a new name, it's pretty catchy.

Actually, what they did is change the topology of the magnet structure to a geometry which can create higher flux density in the air gap.

I figured it was pure BS