Quote:
I look at the market and observe what the headphone companies and informed customers say and how they stratify the product. As my best cans are the Senn HD 600, Denon D 7000 and AKG Q 701, I am not an audiophile snob--certainly not in Head-Fi land. I also agree that the best value for quality recorded music can be found in what I call the "mid-fi" class/price range.
When it comes down to the meaning of "hi-fi", when I was growing up, it was mono 33 1/3 LP's (much better than the old 78's) played in giant and beautiful Fisher (and other brand) audio cabinets. See one such later example:
http://meuble.radio.free.fr/stereo_console/
What was hi-fi in the 50's, did not qualify as such by the end of the 60's...and on it goes.
"Audiophile" cans (turntables, amps, etc.) simply captures what the hi-enders buy and what is (reasonably) marketed to them--at any particular point in time. In the old days of GM--they are the Cadillac market, while most everyone else is the Chevy, Pontiac, Olds and Buick classes/segments. Even in those days, every Cadillac was not necessarily better than every downline model and make.
I understand your viewpoint, but I think there are some fundamental flaws with the analysis. The the manufacturers have indeed not stratified these products into what some call "mid-fi." To use the Sennheiser example, HD650 was their $500 hi-fi reference headphone almost 10 years ago, and HD650 is still their $500 hi-fi reference headphone today. Even if they were to come out with an HD675 at $500 and bump HD650 to $350 permanantly, would HD650 no longer be hi-fi because a slightly re-tuned improved model exists? No. HD600 did not stop being hi-fi because a slightly pricier retuned and improved HD650 was released. Years ago, there was no $1k headphone market. $250-500 represented "top of the line", and $10k represented "summit-fi"....an ultra high-end performance-at-any-cost luxury tier for those with vast cash to spend on such things, and a desire for not just high-fidelity, but ultimate-fidelity at any cost. It's like trading in your performance-tuned racing stock car for a performance tuned F1 Ferrari. Neither class would be accidentally mistaken for a Volvo by anyone.
I think where you and others are seeing the erosion of hi-fi into mid-fi where new higher-fi is released is inaccurate. What you're seeing is the introduction of a new tier of semi-affordable summit-fi. Instead of targeting the $10k market for a few hundred celebrities, politicians, and executives (Stax, Orpheus, etc.) they realigned and started building a more down to earth ultra-top-of-the-line performance-at-any-cost tier for a much more affordable cost. Notice the $10k Orpheus is gone, and the $1500 (cheap by comparison) HD800 now represents Senn's top of the line. Beyer joined the fray with T1, T5p. AKG bailed out of the summit world, settling on Q701 as their top of the line, but supposedly will release a new flagship at some point. Audeze exists only in the summit world with a $1k entry fee, HiFiMan....they're the wild card. Traditionally they're summit-only, but the HE-400 and HE-300 shows they're branching out, or lower the price of summit and are the first to move summit to hi.
There are only a smattering of headphones in that elite "summit-fi" world that you're mistaking for hi-fi and moving hi-fi to mid-fi for. LCD-2, LCD-3, HD800, HD700 (ugh, do we really have to count that monstrosity out of place release?), T1, T5p, K1000 (discontinued), HE-6, HE-500, HE-400 (personal bias, but having heard it, I can't really exclude it from summit, the performance is extraordinary at any price, let alone a price lower than HD650 currently.) And.... what else? Stax, of course. a few Audio Technicas, a few Ultrasones, a Sony or two, a Grado, Fisher, . Lets say 18-20 headphones that really fiit that category other than the true exotic stuff. By that definition of hi-fi we have all of 20 cans to pick from for hi-fi, and everything else is mid-fi? No.
Those are all amazing cans, though they're all also amazingly overpriced far beyond their true value. These are luxury toys for every ounce of performance no matter the price. But, no mistake, they all represent a new tier (NEW) more affordable tier of summit-fi, the ultra-luxury side of high-fidelity. It is a price class that previously did not exist. They do not negate the remainder of the vast array of high fidelity headphones available.
Where there is merit to your view that I can somewhat agree with is that at some point in time, it will come to be that the market will be flooded, at all price points, by ring drivers, tesla coils, planars, etc, and it will mark a turning point where all price ranges are replaced with significantly greater performance than before at the same price points, and dynamics will probably be reduced to only the low end entry level equipment. At that point, yes, perhaps hi-fi will be forever changed, and it will be hard to call the older tech an equal. But that day has not yet come in the past 10 years, no manufacturer (except maybe HiFiMan if they play their cards right) seems poised to set that stage, or even interested in doing so. HD700 was the golden opportunity to start moving the tech downward, and the result was either a failure to affordably do so, or a lack of desire to do so, or both. As-is, the level of fidelity available at any given price point is the same level as has been available. The basic dynamic driver technology hasn't changed since the 1950s, and vintage hi-fi still sounds fantastic, as many folks here will attest. If it was hi-fi 5, 10, and in many cases 20 years ago, it's still high-fidelity. It is no less true to the source today than it was then, and nothing superior has replaced it at, or anywhere near, its price bracket despite a new "preview of the future" bracket being invented.
Worse, the new techs are often still very polarizing. For every fan of HD800 you find, you'll find two that either ran screaming back to HD650 or like HD800 only for certain uses but wouldn't use it as their every day headphone. Most critics and owners seem to identify HE-6 and HE-500 as technologically superior to HE-400, yet most of the professional critics seem to prefer HE-400 for their daily listening, and more than one owner of both on the boards wouldn't give up either, but has a slight preference toward HE-400. The current trend in "ultimate detail and treble sharpness" that seems to represent that summit at the moment seem to not be to everyone's tastes. Many of these people are avid audiophiles, most of which own very exotic signal chains or studio equipemnt. They have no interest in "mid-fi". HD-650 is still popular for those with exotic multi-$k signal chains that were built soly for 650. Is it mid-fi?
The tech has caught up to a level where there's a lot of options of very high quality to pick from. While some certainly represent a higher backet, the level of performance difference relative to price is often subtle. Worthwhile for some, but not significant enough to declare a complete hi-fi revolution.
When HD680 comes out for $500, and HD599 for $400 sporting ring drivers and HD800-like performance, then there's room for discussion. Maybe in another 10 years, at the current rate of progression.
Quote:
I know what you mean... when I read the last couple of pages my HD650 started to sound even better...
LOL, HD650, K70x are still great headphones, no question! I like what the new tech can do, and I've grown attached to my planars, but to say 650 and 70x are only medium fidelity is just an unpalpable stretch. I think the fidelity part is pretty much reaching the natural limits of what can ever be squeezed out of a speaker in the "new summit" and is probably part of why no company is in a rush to move it down to mainstream hi-fi. What needs to be worked on and improved now is more realistic staging, but that is so unfortunately recording dependent. HD800 is probably the undisputed winner so far, but it's a long, long, long way from mainstream hi-fi.
