[pctazhp]

While not necessarily entirely on point, here is a chapter from Jason Stoddard's online book he just posted: https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/s...bable-start-up.701900/page-1360#post-13508638

I think it is an interesting snapshot of some of the challenges faced by a company like Schiit. Wow, I guess I'm really coming across as a Schiit fanboy. Not really. I never use my Valhalla 2, far preferring my Polish made Elise and Euforia.

 

[castleofargh]

but people don't necessary pay for objective specs and it's fine. I understand the rational behind "if it makes no audible difference why pay more?". but again that's only because we start with the assumption that sound is the only thing that matters to people. to me it often is, but I can bet that my mother could buy the more expensive DAC simply because she finds it pretty. she doesn't really care about fidelity, but if it doesn't go well with the rest of the room, now this is a problem. ^_^

at a personal level, who cares. we get what we want to get for the reason we want to get it. as for price, the expensive DAC to me is a cheap DAC to someone else. so let's do whatever we want with our money.
but why are some manufacturers selling devices that are consistently more expensive while nothing really seem to justify the price increase on a technical or manufacturing angle? I try to view different options, but all I can think of is that they milk the cow and won't stop rising prices until we stop paying for it. why would they stay? I wouldn't.

 

[pctazhp]

One thing I've never gotten a good handle on is how many people (particularly the small and medium size businesses) are in high-end audio primarily to make money as opposed to passion for the hobby. I've always viewed high-end audio as a fairly niche business sector, and it seems to me there may be a lot more effective ways to make a lot of money.

And to those people who have taken it upon themselves to educate us stupid consumers, I always view with a certain amount of skepticism those who are on a mission. If nothing else, their mission gets in the way of mine.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I'm certainly glad that there are tons of consumer options available. There are plenty of reasons other than pure audio quality for paying a lot of money for something. Sure, there may be some self-delusional folks around, but not everyone, and probably not even most. My laughter is more about having what feels like a secret about digital audio. It is almost as if I'm getting away with something or that I stumbled upon a less traveled shortcut.

 

[pctazhp]

I definitely understand)) And BTW, I can be equally hard on "subjectivists" who make totally unsubstantiated and untested claims. Crap like "golden ears" and all that !!!!

 

[bigshot]

One thing I've never gotten a good handle on is how many people (particularly the small and medium size businesses) are in high-end audio primarily to make money as opposed to passion for the hobby. I've always viewed high-end audio as a fairly niche business sector, and it seems to me there may be a lot more effective ways to make a lot of money.

Try going into a high end audio store and talk to the friendly commissioned salespeople. You'll find plenty of snake oil. Unless you don't look like you have money. Then they will just refuse to help you and give you "something stinks" faces.

 

[Argyris]

I don't think there's anything new about the upward pricing trend in the high end, or the dubious nature of the claims of superior fidelity that pervade the marketing. Earlier in this thread there was a link to some old Stereophile articles that described a dynamic that was eerily similar to what we have today with personal audio. I think where some people in this thread are expressing frustration is that, up until the last decade (and really the past three or four years), headphones as a category were often seen as an antidote to the typical hifi antics. A decade ago, I frequently saw it written that headphones were the best kept secret in hifi because you could get considerably better sound for a very modest investment (e.g. under $500) than you could from speakers. While this is still true--my recent quest to find a pair of competent monitors under $1,000 came up dry, yet my
HD 600 cost me just $280--there are now numerous headphones which cost multiple thousands of dollars, and we can just expect new flagships to cost at least a thousand. What made headphones special, the fact that even the "best" headphone cost at most around $500, has all but eroded away.

The old guard flagships are all still in production, and if you know what you want and where to look, it's possible to put together a really nice system for not much money at all. In fact, we have far more choices in the overall market now than ever before. But it's nonetheless the case that the high end is shooting ever higher in price in comparison to the rest of the market. Tyll has often said that the midrange price sector, from $500 to $1,000, is underserved. He's absolutely right. New releases here are few and far in between and usually come with obvious flaws (e.g. poor bass extension, rough treble, response weirdness, etc.). It's been a long time since a consensus world beater has emerged, breathless exultations in impressions threads notwithstanding. Theoretically, a hypothetical improved HD 600 should occupy this segment given the ~$300 cost of the original headphone. I'd say a headphone with the same tonal balance but better bass extension would easily be worth $750. But when the HD 600 killer finally comes, it ain't gonna go for $750. If we're lucky, it'll be double that. More likely, it'll be at least $3,000. A headphone like that will never get dumped in the midrange segment because it's too good, and companies know they can get a bunch more money for it.

And that's where the frustration comes in. Whatever we want to attribute this upward pricing trend to, and whether or not it has precedent in the hifi world (see above: it does), is merely a digression. The fact is it's happening, and nobody has to like it. Change is inevitable, but it's a lot less aggravating if we can see a legitimate reason for the change. Here, there simply isn't one. Modern flagships are not, by any credible measure or even the most generous subjective assessment, an order of magnitude better than the old guard headphones. And yet, they all cost that much more.

The typical line that the market determines the price is unsatisfying, if grudgingly accurate. Yes, people are buying at the ever-increasing prices. Yes, there's money to be made, and companies are making it. I don't want them to, and I don't think it's unreasonable that I and others feel this way. It doesn't benefit me one bit if companies can get people to pay thousands for what ten years ago they could only get away with charging hundreds for. What people in this thread are searching for, I think, is some sort of counter to the ever-inflating prices. This counter may be in the form of an objective means of measuring the performance of a given piece of equipment to determine whether or not it's worth a premium over cheaper alternatives. It may be the hope that a mentality emerges which questions manufacturers' claims and places greater importance on value. It may be something else entirely. Whatever it is, the occasional griping I've seen (and have taken part in) in this thread is a perfectly understandable consequence of the frustration we all feel.

 

[pctazhp]

I can't think of a single piece of audio equipment I own that came from a company that made any claim that had anything to do with my purchase. If someone is ignorant enough to actually be influenced by typical advertising hype I just can't feel sorry for that person.

The headphone market is probably one of the least regulated market there is and I hope it stays that way. I neither begrudge people who can and do spend more money than I do nor do I resent successful companies that find legal ways to make as much money as they possibly can. But I've never much been in to envy or trying to tell other people how they should live their own lives. I just can't understand people who get all worked up about expensive gear. If you can't afford it or don't want to spend that much money, why worry about it. Unless you just can't stand the idea that there are people who can spend more money than you are able.

 

[pctazhp]

Try going into a high end audio store and talk to the friendly commissioned salespeople. You'll find plenty of snake oil. Unless you don't look like you have money. Then they will just refuse to help you and give you "something stinks" faces.

Do you know what percentage of audio gear is still sold through brick and mortar stores? I suspect it is quite low. I suspect most gear today is bought over the internet which normally is a fairly impersonal process, without pesky salespeople involved.I haven't been into a high end store for years.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I am accountable to no one but myself for whatever decision I make. [2] If you are satisfied making your decisions based purely on measurements, then that is the best approach for you. [3] But I would hope you don't try to shame anyone who would approach it differently.

1. There's two problems with this: A. Here and on similar forums, advice is given by many based on the decisions they've made. They are therefore accountable to those they are advising, not just themselves and B. Regardless of what advice you're giving or even if you're not giving any advice, you are still not only accountable to yourself! You are part of a collective of consumers and that collective's decisions influences and changes the industry. You therefore bare some of the responsibility of those changes and ARE therefore accountable for your decisions! For example, you subscribe to Tidal which, along with other streaming services, is causing a paradigm shift in the industry due to the very low revenues it generates for the music creators, relative to the revenues of traditional media. To compensate, less time and money must be invested into creating music products, resulting in poorer quality than would have been the case and less opportunity for investment in new talent. Of course, consumers are never going to know what could have been achieved, what great songs/albums were not made and what new talent has not been supported. It's a sad fact that some/many of the great albums and artists of the past could not be made and would not have existed in today's market.

2. Neither I nor anyone else I know are satisfied making all my decisions based purely on measurements. Again, it depends what equipment we're talking about. Some equipment only needs a basic understanding of the science to realise there cannot be any difference and doesn't even need measurements upon which to base a decision. With other types of equipment basic science and measurements are enough and in still other cases, basic science, measurements and physical, listening tests are all needed to make an informed decision.

3. Sometimes yes, shaming people is entirely justified, due to the wider impact that "approach" may have on others and the entire industry, as explained above.

G

 

[pctazhp]

@gregorio According to your logic, we should carefully consider the impact of every purchase of any kind we make. Sorry, but whatever social conscience, if any, I have doesn't extend that far. Just doesn't compute with me.

But my own personal moral conscience tells me not to shame people. I try, not always successfully, to listen to my conscience.

I don't advise on HeadFi. I often share my listening experience with the gear I use. I don't have such a low opinion of other people to worry that I may be leading them down the path to a worthless and empty life.

 

[sonitus mirus]

While headphones can provide a lot of bang for the buck, I don't have the same enjoyment I get with speakers. I suppose it depends on the room. For a small room where a person is typically sitting in one spot, surely there are competent speakers available for under $1000 that would be comparable to the details you would get from a pair of mid-priced Sennheisers? With a modest amount of room treatment and a cheap EQ, you should be able to get a flat frequency response. Even without any treatment in a horrible acoustic setting (corner with a large window), I was able to pass the old Phillips Golden Ear challenge with a cheap pair of KRK Rokit 8 monitors that I had previously passed with my Denon D5K headphones.

I don't think there's anything new about the upward pricing trend in the high end, or the dubious nature of the claims of superior fidelity that pervade the marketing. Earlier in this thread there was a link to some old Stereophile articles that described a dynamic that was eerily similar to what we have today with personal audio. I think where some people in this thread are expressing frustration is that, up until the last decade (and really the past three or four years), headphones as a category were often seen as an antidote to the typical hifi antics. A decade ago, I frequently saw it written that headphones were the best kept secret in hifi because you could get considerably better sound for a very modest investment (e.g. under $500) than you could from speakers. While this is still true--my recent quest to find a pair of competent monitors under $1,000 came up dry, yet my
HD 600 cost me just $280--there are now numerous headphones which cost multiple thousands of dollars, and we can just expect new flagships to cost at least a thousand. What made headphones special, the fact that even the "best" headphone cost at most around $500, has all but eroded away.

The old guard flagships are all still in production, and if you know what you want and where to look, it's possible to put together a really nice system for not much money at all. In fact, we have far more choices in the overall market now than ever before. But it's nonetheless the case that the high end is shooting ever higher in price in comparison to the rest of the market. Tyll has often said that the midrange price sector, from $500 to $1,000, is underserved. He's absolutely right. New releases here are few and far in between and usually come with obvious flaws (e.g. poor bass extension, rough treble, response weirdness, etc.). It's been a long time since a consensus world beater has emerged, breathless exultations in impressions threads notwithstanding. Theoretically, a hypothetical improved HD 600 should occupy this segment given the ~$300 cost of the original headphone. I'd say a headphone with the same tonal balance but better bass extension would easily be worth $750. But when the HD 600 killer finally comes, it ain't gonna go for $750. If we're lucky, it'll be double that. More likely, it'll be at least $3,000. A headphone like that will never get dumped in the midrange segment because it's too good, and companies know they can get a bunch more money for it.

And that's where the frustration comes in. Whatever we want to attribute this upward pricing trend to, and whether or not it has precedent in the hifi world (see above: it does), is merely a digression. The fact is it's happening, and nobody has to like it. Change is inevitable, but it's a lot less aggravating if we can see a legitimate reason for the change. Here, there simply isn't one. Modern flagships are not, by any credible measure or even the most generous subjective assessment, an order of magnitude better than the old guard headphones. And yet, they all cost that much more.

The typical line that the market determines the price is unsatisfying, if grudgingly accurate. Yes, people are buying at the ever-increasing prices. Yes, there's money to be made, and companies are making it. I don't want them to, and I don't think it's unreasonable that I and others feel this way. It doesn't benefit me one bit if companies can get people to pay thousands for what ten years ago they could only get away with charging hundreds for. What people in this thread are searching for, I think, is some sort of counter to the ever-inflating prices. This counter may be in the form of an objective means of measuring the performance of a given piece of equipment to determine whether or not it's worth a premium over cheaper alternatives. It may be the hope that a mentality emerges which questions manufacturers' claims and places greater importance on value. It may be something else entirely. Whatever it is, the occasional griping I've seen (and have taken part in) in this thread is a perfectly understandable consequence of the frustration we all feel.

 

[bigshot]

Do you know what percentage of audio gear is still sold through brick and mortar stores? I suspect it is quite low. I suspect most gear today is bought over the internet which normally is a fairly impersonal process, without pesky salespeople involved.I haven't been into a high end store for years.

The sales pitch is still there on websites, over the phone when ordering, and through high end audio "consultants" who do installation and broker sales of equipment.

 

[pctazhp]

The sales pitch is still there on websites, over the phone when ordering, and through high end audio "consultants" who do installation and broker sales of equipment.

Sales pitches exist for virtually every product made and sold. Has for centuries. Somehow mankind has survived. I haven't spoken to someone on the phone when ordering audio equipment in years. Haven't had anything "installed" in years, but in the past I had already bought everything when the installers arrived. But it sure is comforting to know there are people like you to protect all the rest of us.

 

[bigshot]

I think your definition of high end might be different than mine. Midrange equipment is usually bought online and is plug and play. High end is more custom- the difference between a $10,000 upper midrange stereo system and a $75,000 and up full bells and whistles one- room treatment, custom installed wiring, power supplies, cabinetry, video, programmed remotes, sound processors, the whole nine yards.