Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Most overrated headphones?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Most overrated headphones? - Page 68

post #1006 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb3723 View Post


Yes, in monetary terms, well that's how I read the members post I was replying to anyway.

I was replying to the below member comment that their two most important criteria (for buying a headphone) included "The headphones will hold value or appreciate over time" and how I thought such criteria unusual.

Unless you are looking to buy Sennheiser Orpheus or a few select other cans, I can't see much else ever holding or appreciating in value, and this type of criteria is not something that comes to my mind when I'm considering a new headphone, and I wouldn't expect many others would either?

 

I meant minimizing depreciation if appreciation is not possible. In particular this probably means buying used or heavily discounted and at least a few years after release date so that you had the opportunity to watch the price and make sure it at least somewhat stabilized. Surely you don't want to be in a position where you spend $2000 on cans and then a couple years later they are only worth $1000 or $500? That's just not smart. Why spend money on something that will depreciate when you can buy something that does roughly the same thing but doesn't depreciate or at least depreciates less?

post #1007 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelet View Post
 

 

I meant minimizing depreciation if appreciation is not possible. In particular this probably means buying used or heavily discounted and at least a few years after release date so that you had the opportunity to watch the price and make sure it at least somewhat stabilized. Surely you don't want to be in a position where you spend $2000 on cans and then a couple years later they are only worth $1000 or $500? That's just not smart. Why spend money on something that will depreciate when you can buy something that does roughly the same thing but doesn't depreciate or at least depreciates less?

 

...because you want to keep it?

post #1008 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelet View Post
 

 

I meant minimizing depreciation if appreciation is not possible. In particular this probably means buying used or heavily discounted and at least a few years after release date so that you had the opportunity to watch the price and make sure it at least somewhat stabilized. Surely you don't want to be in a position where you spend $2000 on cans and then a couple years later they are only worth $1000 or $500? That's just not smart. Why spend money on something that will depreciate when you can buy something that does roughly the same thing but doesn't depreciate or at least depreciates less?

 

Then sometime down the road if you are unhappy or found something better you simply trade for what you like more. Without financial loss.

 

Basically all i'm saying is that it's the buyer's responsibility to act as an efficient participant in the marketplace and depreciation is a frequently forgotten part of the equation that is actually just as important if not more important than the purchase price.

post #1009 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by cattlethief View Post

Traded my Hifiman HE-400(1163 pages of gush)had them for over a year! For the  Audio Technica ATHW1000X(123 pages)had them for 7 days and to me a far superior headphone in looks, comfort and SQ.

I can't comment on the HE-400 as I've not heard a pair, but I do own the beautiful wood earcup ATH-W1000X and man, what an awesome sounding can - soundstage bigger than some of my open backs, punchy controlled bass, very crisp, sharp detailed sound, I love this can smily_headphones1.gif

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
cba2f50b_DSC_2937.jpeg
4e060fbf_DSC_2908.jpeg

Edited by cb3723 - 6/15/14 at 5:17pm
post #1010 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post
 

 

...because you want to keep it?

I don't see this as a rational argument. Because you want to keep something you have to purchase an asset that drops like a rock instead of holding off and waiting a year or two to see what it's true value is closer to and buying the same item at a fraction of a price with reduced depreciation? That doesn't strike me as rational unless the purchase price is an insignificantly marginal fraction of your income (i'd say <1% of disposable monthly income).


Edited by wavelet - 6/15/14 at 5:28pm
post #1011 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelet View Post

Then sometime down the road if you are unhappy or found something better you simply trade for what you like more. Without financial loss.

Basically all i'm saying is that it's the buyer's responsibility to act as an efficient participant in the marketplace and depreciation is a frequently forgotten part of the equation that is actually just as important if not more important than the purchase price.

Oh, I understand where you're coming from now.

Yeah, like why pay $2k on LCD-3 (for example) if you find a member or wherever else somebody selling a good condition pair they want to move on for a good second user price, that you may be able to re-sell for what you paid or if possible at a higher price at some point later down the line for whatever reason you wish to?

Kinda like free cans - as the original purchaser has taken the initial biggest hit on depreciation, and providing a stable second user market exists for the can you buy second hand remains without and major fluctuations - you could get your outlay back with no depreciation (or very little) suffered by yourself?

Only downside I can see would be if you were unlucky to buy something second user and it developed a fault at some point in your ownership, which would likely be out of manufacturers warranty, but I think that could be a rarer scenario.

smily_headphones1.gif
Edited by cb3723 - 6/15/14 at 5:31pm
post #1012 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapster View Post

This is what I'm talking about:

 
Old beats studio $299.99
Comparable models were around $60 in terms of sound. (Even then, there were surely better ones out there)

New Beats studio: $269.99
Comparable models are around $81

I'm still not impressed. They're still mucking around the level below UE6000. The beats studio resemble the beats PRO in SQ, but with slightly less bass.

Although they're going in the right direction, giving them praise saying they're catering to audiophiles is ridiculous. I don't think a whole lot aside of a few select people go around saying they're audiophiles while only owning a pair of $80 headphones.

It's the definition of Overrated.
well... I own only a 80$ headphone with a 60$ amp... Am I wrong in saying I am an audiophile?... And new beats studio 2.0's? I've tried them... I'd say comparing to 80$ headphones is pushing it, especially since the k240, shure srh-440, accidentally extraordinary 51st studios, and a few more headphones market for that much and are somewhat better. I'd say a more plausible price for comparison would be 60$. Old studios around 35$.
post #1013 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelet View Post
 

I don't see this as a rational argument. Because you want to keep something you have to purchase an asset that drops like a rock instead of holding off and waiting a year or two to see it's true value and buying the same item at a fraction of a price with reduced depreciation? That doesn't strike me as rational unless the purchase price is an insignificantly marginal fraction of your income (i'd say <1% of disposable monthly income).

 

Okay I see what you're talking about. You're referring to waiting a few years to see if the price falls as opposed to talking about how much you can sell it for after purchase. Different topic.

 

THAT SAID, that's not a great way of looking at it either. Let's say headphone X costs $500 today, but in two years it'll cost $100. I, however, adore how it sounds. Why would I rob myself 730 days of happiness with X because I'm worried about how much it will cost later? You can prorate that extra $400 to about 55 cents a day you paid to enjoy it, and in my case that's about ten cents an hour. 

 

Plus, you're talking about a gamble. What happens if you wait two years and the price stays the same? Congratulations, you're just sitting on your hands forever not buying what you could have been loving all this time because you wanted to save some money.

 

Third problem is that you're tying quality to price. As though if our aforementioned Headphone X drops from $500 to $100 it means it's "worse" than headphone Y that doesn't drop. The market doesn't work that way. Look at Bose and Beats. Meanwhile a company might just want to unload all their stock of an old model to make room for a new one and ratchet the price down. How is that "true value"?

 

You're taking a few basic ideas of economics but applying them wildly incorrectly. 

post #1014 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisCHORDDubstep View Post


well... I own only a 80$ headphone with a 60$ amp... Am I wrong in saying I am an audiophile?... And new beats studio 2.0's? I've tried them... I'd say comparing to 80$ headphones is pushing it, especially since the k240, shure srh-440, accidentally extraordinary 51st studios, and a few more headphones market for that much and are somewhat better. I'd say a more plausible price for comparison would be 60$. Old studios around 35$.

 

You're not wrong for saying you're an audiophile, but calling the Studio 2013's a $60 headphone is just ridiculously comical. The SRH-440 is... if you told me those were the only headphones in the world I was allowed to buy the only way I would take the Shures over the Beats is if they were free. 

post #1015 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisCHORDDubstep View Post

well... I own only a 80$ headphone with a 60$ amp... Am I wrong in saying I am an audiophile?... And new beats studio 2.0's? I've tried them... I'd say comparing to 80$ headphones is pushing it, especially since the k240, shure srh-440, accidentally extraordinary 51st studios, and a few more headphones market for that much and are somewhat better. I'd say a more plausible price for comparison would be 60$. Old studios around 35$.

Huh?

I'd say beats cans lose value on the second user market due to all the fakes been sold for same price as a bottle of Jack Daniels.

That's reason why I don't buy beats second hand due to high risk of counterfeits.

How's your AKG K812 fund going anyway? wink.gif
Edited by cb3723 - 6/15/14 at 5:37pm
post #1016 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb3723 View Post


Huh?

I'd say beats cans lose value on the second user market due to all the fakes been sold for same price as a bottle of Jack Daniels.

That's reason why I don't buy beats second hand due to high risk of counterfeits.

 

I think you meant to respond to me. I was using how much they cost retail, which is what I thought the other guy was talking about: market depreciation, not what they go for secondhand. 

post #1017 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post

You're not wrong for saying you're an audiophile, but calling the Studio 2013's a $60 headphone is just ridiculously comical. The SRH-440 is... if you told me those were the only headphones in the world I was allowed to buy the only way I would take the Shures over the Beats is if they were free. 

You know, I've yet to hear one pair of Shure cans but hear good things about the 1540's.

What's up with the 440's? Never really heard any reports of that model either way?

I think that the JVC HA-SZ1000 cans are currently a steal at what HBB paid ($130) - I paid lot more due to UK inflated price, but if you can pick them up for HBB paid - amazing price for such a lot of serious headphone smily_headphones1.gif
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
5ecb94fa_image.jpeg
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post

I think you meant to respond to me. I was using how much they cost retail, which is what I thought the other guy was talking about: market depreciation, not what they go for secondhand. 

No dude, it was DubStep I intended my reply for, but I do agree with your earlier comment that comparing new Studios to a $60 alternative as absurd.
Edited by cb3723 - 6/15/14 at 5:53pm
post #1018 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post
 

 

Okay I see what you're talking about. You're referring to waiting a few years to see if the price falls as opposed to talking about how much you can sell it for after purchase. Different topic.

 

THAT SAID, that's not a great way of looking at it either. Let's say headphone X costs $500 today, but in two years it'll cost $100. I, however, adore how it sounds. Why would I rob myself 730 days of happiness with X because I'm worried about how much it will cost later? You can prorate that extra $400 to about 55 cents a day you paid to enjoy it, and in my case that's about ten cents an hour. 

 

Plus, you're talking about a gamble. What happens if you wait two years and the price stays the same? Congratulations, you're just sitting on your hands forever not buying what you could have been loving all this time because you wanted to save some money.

 

Third problem is that you're tying quality to price. As though if our aforementioned Headphone X drops from $500 to $100 it means it's "worse" than headphone Y that doesn't drop. The market doesn't work that way. Look at Bose and Beats. Meanwhile a company might just want to unload all their stock of an old model to make room for a new one and ratchet the price down. How is that "true value"?

 

You're taking a few basic ideas of economics but applying them wildly incorrectly. 

 

Opportunity cost. You can have something that's just as good (thankfully the market has an abundance of choices) and pay close to 0 cents a day for depreciation instead of 55.

post #1019 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post

You're not wrong for saying you're an audiophile, but calling the Studio 2013's a $60 headphone is just ridiculously comical. The SRH-440 is... if you told me those were the only headphones in the world I was allowed to buy the only way I would take the Shures over the Beats is if they were free. 
comical? How so? If I think they don't sound as good as some of the 80$ offerings, then why argue with me? I just find some of the 80$ cans to have faster, tighter bass, larger soundstage, and/or less colored sound. I've listened to the studio 2.0's for 20 minutes, and while it has a fun sound signature and a pleasant warmth, I didn't find it to be as detailed, clean, and clear as other cans... I like clear and clean more than warm. I say if I want a bassy headphone, I'll skip the warm cans and go straight to the bass thunderguns. To CB: Still looking for a job. 3 choices I have so far.
Edited by DisCHORDDubstep - 6/15/14 at 6:08pm
post #1020 of 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelet View Post

Opportunity cost. You can have something that's just as good (thankfully the market has an abundance of choices) and pay close to 0 cents a day for depreciation instead of 55.

I know Amazon UK sometimes do some heavily discounted prices sometimes for a limited time.

I picked up the Focal Spirit Classic cans straight after they were released for £188.02p when everywhere else had them at £299.99, which was an amazing deal smily_headphones1.gif

Even now Amazon UK have them listed at £237.00, so sometimes new gear can be found at a good price which means you don't have to wait a year or so to pick them up in the second user market and you get em brand spanking box fresh new smily_headphones1.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Most overrated headphones?