[tokendog]

Quote:

It would be really interesting to see whats actually inside both the th600 and 900.
If the 600 sounded nearly as good, fostex would have to adjust (sabatarge) the cheaper model so as not to affect the desirability of he 900.
I really like the look of these.

If we are on the subject of M cars, I'd take the 1m over all the others even with it being upto half the price. You get 90% of the performance and a bit less bling.
I think it's fair for the 600 to be 90% of the 900 without the luxuries.

 
You think it's fair, but it's not financially reasonable.  At least not from a company's perspective...a company that is in it to make a profit.  No profit = no company.
 
You should stop looking at it as a means to get the TH900s without paying the premium, but rather, "How does this headphone compare to others at the same price point?  Does it beat them, compare favorably, or is it out classed?"
 
Comparing the TH-600s against the TH-900s and hoping for some miracle where you can get the SQ for half the price isn't very practical nor likely.
 
I'd love to have the TH-900s SQ for $1,000 or even $500 or even $1.  But that's not going to happen.  I love the appearance of the TH-900s and I understand that is some peoples justification for the $2k premium, however, I doubt people would pay $2k for headphones that looked beautiful but were sub-par in SQ (I realize there are exceptions...)  First and foremost, we pay for the SQ, then appearance or features, etc.
 
The TH-900 competes and in many ways BEATS other headphones at the comparable price bracket.
 
The real question shouldn't be, "Can I get that for half the price?" but rather, "does the TH-600 do the same and beat or meet the other headphones at its price bracket?"
 
I can appreciate wishful thinking as much as the next guy, but one has to be realistic.  You get what you pay for.

 

[jiminy]

If we use that argument, does that mean the th900 is twice as good as the th600 and 20 times better than a fostex t50rp.
I can understand people not wanting to compare the 600 to the 900 but to me it's the first headphone it should be compared to. The denon dxxx were rightly compared to each other
One last point, the th600 is an expensive headphone, it should be bloody good

 

[JWahl]

Quote:

 
You think it's fair, but it's not financially reasonable.  At least not from a company's perspective...a company that is in it to make a profit.  No profit = no company.
 
You should stop looking at it as a means to get the TH900s without paying the premium, but rather, "How does this headphone compare to others at the same price point?  Does it beat them, compare favorably, or is it out classed?"
 
Comparing the TH-600s against the TH-900s and hoping for some miracle where you can get the SQ for half the price isn't very practical nor likely.
 
I'd love to have the TH-900s SQ for $1,000 or even $500 or even $1.  But that's not going to happen.  I love the appearance of the TH-900s and I understand that is some peoples justification for the $2k premium, however, I doubt people would pay $2k for headphones that looked beautiful but were sub-par in SQ (I realize there are exceptions...)  First and foremost, we pay for the SQ, then appearance or features, etc.
 
The TH-900 competes and in many ways BEATS other headphones at the comparable price bracket.
 
The real question shouldn't be, "Can I get that for half the price?" but rather, "does the TH-600 do the same and beat or meet the other headphones at its price bracket?"
 
I can appreciate wishful thinking as much as the next guy, but one has to be realistic.  You get what you pay for.

I can understand the logic behind that.  However, there has to be a point in which the labor/materials/R&D cost is no longer proportional to the price.  The only exception is the economies of scale that the item is produced on (i.e. mass production vs. limited units).  I would say it's perfectly reasonable for Fostex to have very near the same hardware internally having reduced the cost of exotic materials from the TH-900.
 
Additionally, the TH600 should be produced in at least slightly greater quantities than the TH900 further reducing the cost.  The gray area is if, for instance, a company designs a new headphone that say, costs less to make than a previous generation, but realize it's sound competes at a much higher level, than naturally they will market it at the higher price bracket.  And your right, people will pay first by sound quality, not the relative production cost to the company.  And there is really little way for the consumer to tell the actual cost to the company.  Sennheiser is the worst offender of this, given their NA retail prices are the same as EU base price + VAT.  Even though Harman ,for instance, has kept AKG in a creative null for several years, at least their mass production capabilities have kept prices down on the K series.
 
This really only applies to larger companies with mass production capabilities.  This wouldn't apply so much to say, Cavalli Audio, that produces high quality but very highly priced amps because the maker chooses to manufacture in very low quantities and must charge more to compensate the difference.

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

If we use that argument, does that mean the th900 is twice as good as the th600 and 20 times better than a fostex t50rp.
I can understand people not wanting to compare the 600 to the 900 but to me it's the first headphone it should be compared to. The denon dxxx were rightly compared to each other
One last point, the th600 is an expensive headphone, it should be bloody good

 
Erm it is called the audio bussiness.... Better things cost more and you do not get twice the performance etc. it is how they make money...

 

[Sweden]

Quote:

D5000 has no sibilance I can detect, out of all Fostex Denons it was the bassiest and with the most relaxed treble. Bass was too much though in stock form.

 
I had some serious sibilance with the D5000. Not Ultrasone sibilance but still some pretty annoyingly harsh highs.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

 
I had some serious sibilance with the D5000. Not Ultrasone sibilance but still some pretty annoyingly harsh highs.

Wondering if difference of opinion has anything to do with different revisions , or just material as someone pointed out as I've noticed that they do quite bad on old rock recordings but hear no problems with modern stuff.
Yes, Ultrasone's treble was something.

 
Why are we discussing this in TH600 thread?

 

[R-Audiohead]

I don't want anyone to think I am calling anybody out when I say this, but we have to remember something...
 
You're the consumer, and as a group we (mostly) get to decide what we want to spend our money on.  Rather than complain about the price... just remember that you don't have to buy it.
 
People will buy what is a good value to them (for whatever reason), and the brutal truth is that people will buy a product at a given rate for a given price, and the successful companies are the ones who can produce a productrice ratio which will be bought at a profitable rate.  It's not solely about how cheap a company can sell a product.  Cost of production is only one piece of the equation.
 
This is, of course, very oversimplified.  If YOU don't think the price is fair or right, you don't have to buy it and can instead put that money toward something that is of worth.  Fortunately, a respectable member of this community, AnakChan, seems to think the TH600 standalone is worth the price tag when compared to other products at similar price points and above.
 
When dreaming about equipment, I remember that sometimes the smart move is to just hold onto the cash.  It's easy for us dreamers to get lost in prices and complain about things being too expensive.  I've just learned to assess, and accept it as "worth it" or "not worth it".
 

 

[JWahl]

Quote:

I don't want anyone to think I am calling anybody out when I say this, but we have to remember something...
 
You're the consumer, and as a group we (mostly) get to decide what we want to spend our money on.  Rather than complain about the price... just remember that you don't have to buy it.
 
People will buy what is a good value to them (for whatever reason), and the brutal truth is that people will buy a product at a given rate for a given price, and the successful companies are the ones who can produce a productrice ratio which will be bought at a profitable rate.  It's not solely about how cheap a company can sell a product.  Cost of production is only one piece of the equation.
 
This is, of course, very oversimplified.  If YOU don't think the price is fair or right, you don't have to buy it and can instead put that money toward something that is of worth.  Fortunately, a respectable member of this community, AnakChan, seems to think the TH600 standalone is worth the price tag when compared to other products at similar price points and above.
 
When dreaming about equipment, I remember that sometimes the smart move is to just hold onto the cash.  It's easy for us dreamers to get lost in prices and complain about things being too expensive.  I've just learned to assess, and accept it as "worth it" or "not worth it".
 

 
Well said.  I was never claiming the TH600 won't be worth the price.  In fact i'm considering them myself.  I tend to think past $1000 most differences are more individual taste, though not saying that there are not technically superior headphones at various $1000+ price points.  I think the main thing I'm looking for (and others) is if they differentiate them enough from the previous Denon series in not having the slight mid recession the Denons are said to have (to be fair I haven't owned one).  
 
I did very briefly listen to the TH900 at a meet, but purposely restrained myself from listening too much so I wouldn't like it too much and feel like I need it, same with the LCD-3.  $1000 headphones are already borderline irresponsible at my income but I do love most of the flagships I've owned in some way or another.
 
The biggest reason I'm considering these is I think it's safe to assume they will have excellent bass but hopefully having well balanced mids and highs, as well as decent soundstage.  I'm also considering HD700 or HD800 but I'm afraid they might be too rolled of in the bass for my tastes.  The  Beyer T1 is the closest to ideal all-around that I've owned but I felt it's a bit overpriced.  So if the TH600 is at least as good or better than the T1 it could be a keeper for me.

 

[Maxvla]

HD800 has some of the best, most natural, bass extension. As it's a normal dynamic you still get great thump. I've only heard the HD700 very briefly so my impressions aren't worth crap.

 

[AngryGuy]

Has there been any sort of information on when these will be available from US retailers like B&H?

 

[JWahl]

Quote:

HD800 has some of the best, most natural, bass extension. As it's a normal dynamic you still get great thump. I've only heard the HD700 very briefly so my impressions aren't worth crap.

I value your impressions, and remember reading yours of the HD700 from the Austin meet (I think).  That option is the refurb price of $729 at crutchfield, at $1k I'd probably just get the TH600.  The HD800 for me remains as sort of a "final" headphone to go to when I've tried everything else that peaks my curiosity.  Of course this logic could cost me a lot more money in the long run is resale losses.  If I had the money I'd just get the HD800 and TH600 and be done with it all.  

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

HD800 has some of the best, most natural, bass extension. As it's a normal dynamic you still get great thump. I've only heard the HD700 very briefly so my impressions aren't worth crap.

 
Out of the HD700 and HD800 which has the most bass and the least treble?

 

[Maxvla]

I value your impressions, and remember reading yours of the HD700 from the Austin meet (I think).  That option is the refurb price of $729 at crutchfield, at $1k I'd probably just get the TH600.  The HD800 for me remains as sort of a "final" headphone to go to when I've tried everything else that peaks my curiosity.  Of course this logic could cost me a lot more money in the long run is resale losses.  If I had the money I'd just get the HD800 and TH600 and be done with it all.  

I didn't hear the HD700 until one of the Dallas mini-meets, but I literally grabbed them as the guy was packing up to leave so I had like 2-3 mins with them, tops. I barely remember them, but recall that they weren't quite as awful as they have been made to be.

Out of the HD700 and HD800 which has the most bass and the least treble?

I don't remember the HD700 well enough to know, and the time I had with them was too little to be worthy of writing real impressions.

 

[AJHeadfi]

It's always in Fostex's interests to make the very best headphone they can for the production cost, even if it's superior to a model that costs more to produce. Crippling a headphone to make it fit somehow is poor practise in so many ways. I don't believe Fostex would carry out such behaviour.

 

[oblique63]

Quote:

 
Out of the HD700 and HD800 which has the most bass and the least treble?

I haven't had a chance to A/B them with my HD800's directly yet, but I have listened to the HD700's at my local best buy a good couple of times. I would say that the HD800's have both more bass, and more treble... The HD700's are definitely a bit tamer in the treble, but they also don't quite have the bass extension and 'slam' of the HD800's either, though still pretty good (in general, not necessarily for the price...)