Originally Posted by Jupiterknight
I think I understand you point. But some people can't wait six months and may just want to know right now or at least within a few weeks if it's really worth buying the UE900 at $400 or should they go for the TF10 at around $170 give or take. I do assume that this is just a discussion thread and not the final verdict on which one is the best purchase at it's original price.
I understand your (and Joe's) point completely.
I just want to put the idea into a different light. Value is normally defined in a review. It's targetted towards the price. The review should be timeless (hold true intact of time). If the price changes down the road, then the value score for a given review written at an earlier date becomes invalidated... It isn't timeless.
My statements come from an extremely review-oriented view. That the person reading the review can be from a later date well down the time line, but also at current. The only way this is possible is with MSRP comparison, not street price-MSRP (as street price can never be estimated; it varies from product to product). Street price to street price isn't possible either since we don't know what the street price of the 9s will be (or any new product for that matter). In my mind, it's not a fair comparison to take value into account with.
I know I've said it enough times already, but I do want to bring up the person who discredited the Sennheiser Amperiors saying they were basically sh!t compared to the HD25 IIs because he could get the 25s for a couple hundred cheaper. My response to that was the exact same one I gave here. We shouldn't compare MSRP to a street price. We should compare MSRP to MSRP and street price to street price. Street price is dynamic. It's never constant, and goes up and down.
Essentially, it comes down to two different ideas about how we should compare headphone's pricing.
Edited by tinyman392 - 8/31/12 at 10:07pm