A hypothetical comparison.

[Altoids]

I'm new here, and I've been surfing the forums for a while. I have to say, the depth of your collective love and knowledge for this pursuit is beautiful. You make other hobby forums look a little immature by comparison. Anyway, one of the things that's caught my attention is this "law of diminishing returns." So, to get a good grip on it, I wanted to propose two polar setups and have you guys tell me what the qualitative difference would be between them relative to their prices.

Setup 1: Zanden Audio Model 2000t -> Zanden Model 5000 MkIV -> Hev90 -> He-90 (I'm still pretty ignorant, so include whatever necessary interconnects or components I've missed, and forgive my mistakes. I'm trying to propose the best possible setup using existing technology.)

Setup 2: Portable Panasonic Discman + stock headphones.

I'm genuinely interested in your answers; thanks in advance.

 

[Comfy]

Welcome to Head-Fi. Sorry about your wallet.

In my opinion, the point of diminishing returns nowadays is about 1000$ for a full headphone setup (source, amp, 'phones). From there on, it's more about flavors and preferences. Of course, a good electrostatic setup will give you more detail and sonic benefits, but your dollars are worth less and less once the 1000$ rig is reached.

Some of the forum-favorite flagship dynamic headphones go for about 300$ (Sennheiser HD-650, AKG K 701).
You can get a very good DIY-amp for around 150-300$ (Pimeta, Millett Hybrid, M3), or a really good stock amp for about 400$ (Corda Aria, etc.).
An awesome source for very little money is the Zhaolu DAC (version 2.0 will cost a little over 100$ once it is released).
Add some quality interconnects, and you have a really nice setup.

You could also buy yourself a pair of Koss KSC-75 portable headphones, and run. That is the absolute best way of reaching headphone nirvana with no considerable damage to your wallet. (Actually, the KSC-75 is the REAL point of diminishing returns. Everything above it is crazy audiophile stuff.)

It's pretty hard for me to give you an opinion regarding the two setups you propose.
Never heard the Orpheus, and probably never will. I don't really want to either, because I won't be able to afford it anyway.

I can say that nowadays, when listening to a basic, el cheapo branded headphone setup, I feel like there is something broken in the chain. It all sounds muddy and congested, with hums and crackling sounds that shouldn't be there, and the overall presentation is one-dimensional, like a string of muddy sound pouring into my ears. On the other hand, my Grados sound like I was on-stage with the band I'm listening to. They induce foot-tapping only comparable to a live concert. The AKG K 701 bring an enormous sensation of space and hyperrealistic detail to my listening sessions.

Many times people want to know if it's about listening to the equipment, more than to the music. Well, while it is definitely fun to listen to the equipment, it is all about the music in the end. My favorite artists sound 10-30 times better now than what they used to, and even not-so-favorite artists are likeable now.

It's pretty impressive to be in the same room with Mr. Dylan, for example.

Hope these comments help. You really should listen for yourself to truly understand this. And the funny part is that many people don't get the differences even listening to these different setups. Some of us are oriented this way and some aren't. Realities of life.

 

[digitalD]

I think the difference there is incredibly relative. While the first rig would obviously sound better, the subtle differences in the two are the things that members on this forum look for (though in this case, there is a HUGE difference). The stock headphones, for most normal people would suffice as music, to most people, is meant to be enjoyed in the background or at the most, on a superficial level. I recall feeling this way when my friend began to venture into high fidelity audio. Hearing about his 300 dollar cables simply blew me away. I could never in my wildest imaginations (at the time) justify that kind of spending on something that I thought made such little difference. However, that was before I HEARD his rig (Cary CDP + KGSS + Stax O2 - I don't know all the details). After hearing it, it opened my eyes to what truly lies within the thin plastic plates we call compact discs. Ignorance is bliss is the idiom we tend to use and it is highly applicable. The music we listen to can be played crudely (to us) by some stock headphones/earphones and would be perfectly acceptable for most people because they HEAR the music. I, on the other hand, want to LISTEN to the music. Those may seem to be the same, but to me, are quite different. As a neophyte audiophile, I am still ignorant to much of the jargon thrown around here (mostly the technical stuff), but the subtleties in the music is what I can understand and enjoy listening to. I want to listen to every last note and actually redupicliate the artist's performance as closely as possible. I want to feel enraptured in the melody and harmonics. To achieve this, it takes more and more sensitive (and expensive) equipment. The more accurately I want to portray the sound, the (likely) more I'll have to spend. I believe that is what the law is all about.
If you know about cars (I am also an automotive enthusiast), you'd know how much we spend on getting the kind of power we want. This is analogous to our persuit in music. It is easy to pull out that first 100-200 BHP out of a 1.2L engine (hypothetical), but it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to climb the power chart as you add on parts and gain power. A bolt on turbo, for instance, would give you a huge increase in power for a relatively nominal amount of money. This could be equivalent to say, your first hi-fi headphone or quality amp, or even a good source. As you continue to add on parts to gain those extra 5-10 BHP each and every step of the way, things get harder and more expensive. In our case, this would be say, adding on audiophile interconnects or high quality tubes or DPS's. Things that make a difference, but are small differences (for the most part) and can cost nearly a kidney. Automobile ethusiasts pay more and add on more to their cars to get that little bit of power. I remember once saying I'd get rid of my A/C system (I lived in Southern California at the time where summers can get intensely hot) for an extra 5 BHP. That 5 doesn't mean much, but it's enough to justify it TO ME. Same thing with sacrificing that 300 dollars on a single interconnect. This is how I view my hobby, I want real sound that I can listen to, feel and melt into. It's my short escape from the world and for me, the cost is almost always worth it. What you need to decide, is where you want to draw the line for balancing yourself on this uneven curve. When is it "good enough"? That is where the law comes into mind and only you can decide where you fall.

P.S. Sorry about the long post.

 

[AlienPyro]

I've been a long-time lurker on these and have only recently started posting just for the hell of it. This has given me some time to sit back and reflect on the Head-fi mass mentality and the general subject of headphone consumerism in general. Humans will have hobbies, and music and audio reproduction are one of them. Headphones themselves have a real usage and the demand for them is large. However, this demand, unless for professional needs, does not extend to purchases such as the Orpheus, Omega II, or even the HD 650. This clicks logically: unless your funds are entirely committed to this hobby, the performance gains will be minimal…which brings us back to your question about diminishing returns.

In audiophile terms, the amount of money spent upgrading in Setup 2 is Zero Dollars, whereas a setup based on the He90 would be the pinnacle of headphone audio reproduction. If you are willing to spend the extra $20,000, then the superior setup is yours and so is the sound that it entails.

Comfy’s recommendation to get Ksc-75s and run is common around here, and very apt. Many Head-fi’ers, you will find, do Not have unlimited funds for top-tier sound. Their goal is to select a groove in the headphone ladder that represents a greater performance/price ratio and settle there. Note that this does not always work as planned (Comfy’s following advice to run the hell away denotes this) and people invariably end up digging into their wallets to buy more equipment.

This search for a satisfactory middle ground is very precarious. After $50-100, or the $15 Koss, sound reproduction changes not so very much. If you know what to buy, a $100 dollar setup is not so different from a $200 one; a $300 setup not much better than a $200 dollar one; a $500 setup not greatly superior to a $300 setup; $1,000 to $500; $2,000 to $1,000, and so on.

The difference is only appreciably mind-blowing (I just realized: mind…blowing?) when comparing the $1,000 setup to the $100 setup or, in the case of your example, the $2,000 one to the $0 one.

Personally, I would second Comfy’s recommendation and advise you pick up some cheap and good headphones and sprint like Pheidippides. May I, however, recommend the slightly more expensive Px100s instead of the Koss as I have used both and find comfort an issue with the latter, whereas the Px100s are more versatile in sound and physical form (but don’t sit on them or anything: they’re not that versatile!).

 

[Uncle Erik]

What I've noticed so far with headphones, as well as other audio equipment, is the level of detail that's revealed.

You're never going to get all the way there, but the better the system, the more you are going to hear. I've got some cheapies around that came with a Discman years ago. I use them to test DIY headphone amps. (If the operating voltages check out, I'll plug these in and see if they fry. So far, so good.) But that's beside the point. The cheapies sound, well, OK. Their response isn't that linear, they were deliberately tuned to produce more bass (what the average consumer listens for) and they just sit on the ear. Lots of leakage and no seal to speak of.

The difference between those and the high-end headphones is that you get increased sensitivity, better linear response, as well as a seal and isolation. You're going to hear a lot more of your music.

The point of diminishing returns? Well, it depends on your expectations. Maybe I shouldn't admit this (at least not at Head-Fi), but an iPod with AAC files and a Sony MDR-V6 sounds not so bad to me. I could live with that. In fact, I gave the MDR-V6 to my brother-in-law when I got the Sennheiser HD-650s. He's thrilled with them.

But if I shot for the middle ground, I'd pick up a decent Class A headphone amp and either the AKG K-701 or the Sennheiser HD-650. Those aren't the pinnacle, but they will get you most of the way there.