[gavinbirss]

Hello,

I wish to express my opinion for those that won't mind.

I have been reading alot of posts on headphones and I am unhappy with the fact the alot of people are confusing cost with perfomance.

This bad cycle just makes that a product will sell for more that it should because it "sounds better".

Lets take an example : the AKG K 501 and the Senn HD 600.

So what does the experts say : "The HD 600 sound way better, because it costs more."

Look at the packaging when buying the phones : a flimsy paper box for the AKG. The Senn have a hard foam filled box.

The materials used on the Senn ....

I also don't like the fact that one particular site gives some AKG phones that cost less that the HD 600 a bad review. Maybe they will make less profit and it may look bad also if they give a lower cost headphone an excellent review.

Well that is my thoughts on the matter. Hope I did not offend or make more enemies out there.

Happy listening ...

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by gavinbirss Hello, I wish to express my opinion for those that won't mind. I have been reading alot of posts on headphones and I am unhappy with the fact the alot of people are confusing cost with perfomance. This bad cycle just makes that a product will sell for more that it should because it "sounds better". Lets take an example : the AKG K 501 and the Senn HD 600. So what does the experts say : "The HD 600 sound way better, because it costs more." Look at the packaging when buying the phones : a flimsy paper box for the AKG. The Senn have a hard foam filled box. The materials used on the Senn .... I also don't like the fact that one particular site gives some AKG phones that cost less that the HD 600 a bad review. Maybe they will make less profit and it may look bad also if they give a lower cost headphone an excellent review. Well that is my thoughts on the matter. Hope I did not offend or make more enemies out there. Happy listening ...

Well, the akg's do cost quite a bit less than the Sennheisers for sure. I don't think most folks here look at the most expensive gear as sounding better. Just look at how many times people bash Sony and Bose, just to name a two examples, that build and sell headphones that cost way too much compared to their performance. As for those akg's and senns, thats a long lost battle. I guarantee you can find some pretty nasty arguments that brewed over those two particular headphones. I own the 580's and the akg's, i like both very much

 

[r3cc0s]

price/value is important especially in entry level cans.

aka: grado sr-80's, mdr-v6, mx500, koss ksc-35's etc...
Because you can get some seriously good sound without the serious cash.

however yes when you get to the higher end just like everything in the world, prestiege costs more.

I mean sure I could just live with some grado sr-125's, but i basically paid over double just for my rs-2's.
Or things like the sony r-10, stax sr-omega 2's, Rs1, etc...
are they worth the amount of price difference? Personally no, but to get to the point of quality they provide, unfortunately it costs that kind of cash.

Same goes with amps, you can be perfectly content with a Ta, porta corda, but to get the best, you can spend easily 10-20 times the costs for like a headroom max.


Just like cars, you can be content with an acura, but you really want a mercedes. Price value is definately towards the acura lets say tl series, but the prestegiousness, and kinda of car like a mercedes s class is, is going to cost that much more.

 

[pedxing]

The correlation between price and quality is not very strong. Some companies sell their headphones at a higher price because of brand name. Other companies sell their headphones at higher prices because they want to build a product of a certain degree of performance and quality. Other times, pricing is dictated by the product line - to convince consumers that the highest end product is significantly better because it costs more which kinda falls back to the original argument of this thread. In this case, the manufacturing cost or design cost is negligible between the highest and lowest end products.

As for the HD600 vs AKG 501, I really do not think its fair to compare the headphones in terms of which one is absolutely better. Personally, I think the sound stage of the AGK 501 is incredible for the price.

 

[williamgoody]

I haven't heard the 501's so I can't comment on those. But I feel the price/performance ratio of headphones is very similar to almost anything else out there. Look at the car industry, any car regardless of price if it's working will get you to where you drive it. But people pay more for "higher end cars" for better performance, luxery, prestige, name dropping, etc. Not all these reasons relate to headphones specifically, but that just seems to be the way a lot of industries are. And just like other industries, the value of the products to the owners can be interpreted differently, just as with headphones. For some, the performance of the 600 justify the cost, for some they don't. It all really comes down to your priorities and choices. But just so you're happy with what you have, it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.

 

[gerG]

Realize that everyone has their own personal set of criteria by which they judge the value of a particular headphone. Sound is only one aspect (and even that can be sub-divided into many different areas). Such things as comfort, durability, stability when moving one's head, position sensitivity, aesthetics, entertainment factor, etc., all fit into the equation. I had a pair of K501s. Great sound for the price, but hard to drive, and very uncomfortable for me, so I sold them. HD600 were better for me, but maybe not for everybody.


gerG

 

[wallijonn]

Gavin,

who are these "experts" which you allude to?

the "costs more so it must be better" arguement does not always hold true. Buy a product like Parasound CDP-1000 and you'll know this for a fact. (It's a horrible transport).

 

[wbjia]

Regarding its price, K501 is the best headphone for classical music.

 

[sliberman]

I bought the AKG K501 for NIS 550.00 (~ US$ 110).
The Senn. HD600 costs NIS 2200.00 (~ US$ 450).
These prices include all taxes.

Why this huge price differential? Different importer margins...
since here the import tax on headphones is just 18%.

Is the HD600 4 times better than the AKG K501??

And the AKG K1000 costs NIS 3300 (~US$ 674).
Is the AKG K1000 only 1.5 times better than the HD600??

For a reference on the low price phones, the MX500 is ~US$ 24
and the Koss PortaPro is US$ 69.

The conclusion is that here in Israel the best price performance
headphone is the AKG K501, assuming of course that there is
appropriate amplification. I found that the Super Mini v3.0a does
not have enough drive and/or gain, and the headphone out of
the Audigy2 Platinum also is not enough. I am using the headphone
output of an Audiolab 8000A integrated amp.

 

[elrod-tom]

I think what we're talking about here is The Law of Diminishing Return.

To wit, I can acquire a nice dynamic headphone for $100 (less if used). I can subsequently spend $250 on a pair of Senn 600's from an internet retailer. The question becomes: are they 2.5 times better?

I can also purchase a Stax Omega II for $2,500 (gently used, I suppose...round numbers). Is the Stax Omega II (ignoring the need for an amp for the Senns for a moment) ten times better than the Senns??

My answer is, it depends. What value does one place on a marginal incremental improvement in sonics. For me, it might be. For my wife...likely not. Regardless, I doubt anyone would argue that the Stax are ten times better than the Senns. My own answer is that I don't care...I just want them!!

 

[DanT]

The rules you get what you paid for work but is very general and there is a lot of exception. It get you a range to choose but afterthat you have to try them.

About the other replied for it worth 2X more etc. That make me remember a tread about how an amp does nothing. What drastic improvement for an audiophile is can be very subtle for others. And the ratio paid twice more get twice the value never hold. especialy when you go into high end. Is more like pay 10 time more get 10% improvement

does it worth it depend on people and it must be otherwise we woundn't hang around here.

 

[Snufkin]

gavinbirss, I know exactly what you mean

When I first looked at the Beyer range I assumed that the DT931 would sound the best to me because it's more expensive - I never would have guessed that I'd settle down with a model that costs nearly 1/2 the price and prefer it.

This is something I've discussed before when the topic of Beyers model numbering system comes up - people often don't know which to buy because they're all similarly priced and the model system doesn't relate to how good they sound.
I think it's great myself, it means that people actually try the headphones in the Beyer range and find out for themselves which they prefer. On the other hand I often see people buying the Sennheiser HD600 because it's the top of the range and most expensive model (orpheus etc aside) from the Sennheiser range - therefore it must sound the best!

The other example is Etymotic - imagine how much they could sell the ER-4P for if it were a fullsize headphone

 

[gavinbirss]

Hello to everyone ...

wallijonn : I'd rather not give you the names of the "experts" because this will cause alot of unnecessary back and forth replies of a negative nature.

We should rather all be happy and enjoy our headphones and music.

I think the bottom line is that when buying gear that you really want you sometimes don't mind what it costs. But in the process you are sometimes being taken for a ride (financially). Value for money is thus very important.

gavin