[PhilS]

There was a thread on this a short time ago. You might find some insights in there as well.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/law...eturns-411972/

IMO, the short answer is that nobody can answer this question for anyone else, as there is no way to measure what the "return" is for someone else (or even a way to measure an improvement in sound quality), the improvements in performance from headphones do not bear a linear relationship with the amount of money spent, and people have different preferences and idiosyncracies, as well as economic circumstances.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif There was a thread on this a short time ago. You might find some insights in there as well. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/law...eturns-411972/ IMO, the short answer is that nobody can answer this question for anyone else, as there is no way to measure what the "return" is for someone else (or even a way to measure an improvement in sound quality), the improvements in performance from headphones do not bear a linear relationship with the amount of money spent, and people have different preferences and idiosyncracies, as well as economic circumstances.

but logic reason never stopped a noob from trying to apply a linear relationship to a decidedly non-linear system

 

[rds]

I'm very skeptical of this math. If you apply this kind of thinking to your life and spending in general you'll quickly see how absurd it becomes.
I mean you could eat grass and bugs and survive fine for $0 and for $5 you could get some gross fast food. Is the fast food infinitely better? What about a proper meal for $15 - is it 3x better than the fast food?
Is a down pillow 12x better than a synthetic one? ...I think most people with down pillows will say no, but it's absolutely worth it.
Are the clothes you like that you buy at regular price 5x better than random clear out stuff at 80% off?
...ok... my point is live your life like that and you will be miserable.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm very skeptical of this math. If you apply this kind of thinking to your life and spending in general you'll quickly see how absurd it becomes. I mean you could eat grass and bugs and survive fine for $0 and for $5 you could get some gross fast food. Is the fast food infinitely better? What about a proper meal for $15 - is it 3x better than the fast food? Is a down pillow 12x better than a synthetic one? ...I think most people with down pillows will say no, but it's absolutely worth it. Are the clothes you like that you buy at regular price 5x better than random clear out stuff at 80% off? ...ok... my point is live your life like that and you will be miserable.

hey, because you're arguing that materialism is good, I'm gonna quip back, ok?

first of all, you couldn't survive on grass and bugs, it lacks the neccisary protiens and fats the body needs to sustain life, any exclusive diet does, we require some sort of biodiversity in our diets, most life does, with the exception of homogenous "balanced" meals (i.e: the slop from The Matrix), we basically have to eat different things

second of all, your pricing on food varies wildly, and is based on misconceptions, grass is not free, especially if you're eating grass from the united states (like a park or your backyard), assuming you don't ingest the fertilizer (ER visits run what? $500-$1000 on average?), the grass itself isn't cheap to grow by any means (water, fertilizer, maintinence, etc), fastfood isn't always bad, and a "good meal" can cost as little as a dollar or two per person (unless you don't know how to cook, in which case, god help you (I just have no empathy for people who are "too good" to cook for themselves))

third of all, your statement on clothing is quite inaccurate as well, with the exception of 14 year old girls, I know nobody who sincerely cares enough about their clothing that it impacts their emotional wellbeing, while I may prefer a nice tailored suit to a t-shirt (actually I don't, I bloody hate suits), neither must be expensive, and "looks" are subjective (with few exceptions, for example you wear black to most funerals, period)

I understand what you're trying to say, but its simply not a fair comparison, because human life is not uncomfortable if you blow off materialistic ventures, in reality, its quite comfortable, because you aren't worrying about keeping up with the bloke next to you

 

[mbd2884]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_N /img/forum/go_quote.gif What, you don't think those awesome new Beats by Dr. Dre are awesome or something?

The Beats are incredible. In the last few months I have not seen a single Sennheiser headphones other than the PX100 on someone's head other than my own. I saw one Beyerdynamic DT770. No AKGs period.

Yet I have now seen 3 Beats. THREE!! Incredible marketing. I don't think I could convince any of the users to ever spend even $100 on a headphone amp, but they spent well over $300 because it's Dr. Dre. And yes, I poked them in the shoulders and asked before buying the Beats did they do any research. If they had heard of any Sennheiser and so on. Answer for all three was no, and no.

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand what you're trying to say, but its simply not a fair comparison, because human life is not uncomfortable if you blow off materialistic ventures, in reality, its quite comfortable, because you aren't worrying about keeping up with the bloke next to you

Besides that, it's intellectually dishonest to draw an analogy between buying $70 phones vs. $1400 phones and eating bugs vs. a $15 meal. But people who draw such analogies aren't interested in honest arguments to begin with.

 

[rds]

You miss my point.
It is actually your perspective that is most modern form of materialism (ie the walmart mentality). That is everything has a dollar value that corresponds to some objective quantity of worth. Cost can be placed on a linear graph, the slope of which corresponds to value.
I'm not talking about suits. I'm talking about individuality. Choosing to pay the price of admission for something that appeals to you uniquely.
I'm my experience people who live this way tend to be the least materialistic, have the least amount of unused junk and are not nearly as receptive to advertising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucky /img/forum/go_quote.gif Besides that, it's intellectually dishonest to draw an analogy between buying $70 phones vs. $1400 phones and eating bugs vs. a $15 meal. But people who draw such analogies aren't interested in honest arguments to begin with.

I have yet to read a post from you that does not contain at least one informal fallacy. What are you talking about honesty?

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have yet to read a post from you that does not contain at least one informal fallacy. What are you talking about honesty?

If you can explain why buying $70 phones vs. $1400 phones and eating bugs vs. a $15 meal are worthy of comparison, please do. If not, your deflections will continue to speak for themselves.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif You miss my point. It is actually your perspective that is most modern form of materialism (ie the walmart mentality). That is everything has a dollar value that corresponds to some objective quantity of worth. Cost can be placed on a linear graph, the slope of which corresponds to value. I'm not talking about suits. I'm talking about individuality. Choosing to pay the price of admission for something that appeals to you uniquely. I'm my experience people who live this way tend to be the least materialistic, have the least amount of unused junk and are not nearly as receptive to advertising.

THE WALMART MENTALITY?! EX-F'ING-CUSE ME?!

GET OUT, AND STAY OUT, OF MY SIGHT, PERIOD.



also, you're talking about niche marketing, nice job there too

honest arguement indeed.

+1 for the global ignore

 

[BigTony]

One thing you must remember is that on a $100 set of cans, the manufacturer is making probably $20 profit, on a $1000 set , this is nearer $400 - so the main aim of the manufacturer is to convince you that for someone with better standards, more discerning taste for music, and for an altogether better muical experience, the $1000 cans are the proper choice.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTony /img/forum/go_quote.gif One thing you must remember is that on a $100 set of cans, the manufacturer is making probably $20 profit, on a $1000 set , this is nearer $400 - so the main aim of the manufacturer is to convince you that for someone with better standards, more discerning taste for music, and for an altogether better muical experience, the $1000 cans are the proper choice.

on a $1000 set the profit margin is probably closer to $700-$900 or more, no question in my mind

Denon D7000 and Audio-Technica W5000 are the prime examples, one lists for $1000 US, one for $1700 US, one sells for $500-$600 US, the other for $600-$700 US

thats a huge profit chunk being knocked off just to sell them to consumers


oh and by the way, they take a total loss on any of these products, thats what statement products do, cost a fortune, attract enthusiasts, and lose money, it gives the company a name though, and with that, they can sell the cheapseats that make them a 50-60% profit (or better) and sell thousands of units a day, instead of 2-3 units a week

 

[rds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucky /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can explain why buying $70 phones vs. $1400 phones and eating bugs vs. a $15 meal are worthy of comparison, please do. If not, your deflections will continue to speak for themselves.

I can't explain the solution to an argument you just made up. I never referred to $70 or $1400 phones.
What I responded to is the op asking if headphones that cost twice as much are twice as good.
Since you need me to be very explicit the math is this:
goodness multiplier = cost of "better" thing/cost of "lesser" thing.
That is what the op was questioning directly. My response was this formula itself is absurd. Take something that costs an arbitrary price and divide it by something that is free to see quickly how this works. It's not being dishonest. It's logic.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't explain the solution to an argument you just made up. I never referred to $70 or $1400 phones. What I responded to is the op asking if headphones that cost twice as much are twice as good. Since you need me to be very explicit the math is this: goodness multiplier = cost of "better" thing/cost of "lesser" thing. That is what the op was questioning directly. My response was this formula itself is absurd. Take something that costs an arbitrary price and divide it by something that is free to see quickly how this works. It's not being dishonest. It's incorrect logic.

fixed.

 

[rds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif THE WALMART MENTALITY?! EX-F'ING-CUSE ME?! GET OUT, AND STAY OUT, OF MY SIGHT, PERIOD.

Chill out. If a civilized response to your accusation that I'm a materialist can make you fly off the handle like this than please do ignore me as I would prefer to not deal with you in any capacity.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif Chill out. If a civilized response to your accusation that I'm a materialist can make you fly off the handle like this than please do ignore me as I would prefer to not deal with you in any capacity.

a civilized response? riiiiight


a civilized response would've been: no, I'm not a materialist, I'm giving a bogus example to try and win a straw-man arguement

your response was: "you're just some stereotypical wal-mart-ite, I'm talking about unique marketing and unique feelings and unique tastes" (which is niche marketing, and entirely fed by the wholescale corporate machine, and its attempt at massmarketed wholesale aggrandizement of human choice)

not to mention that in some circles, associating someone with wal-mart is considered quite offensive