Grado SR 60 Impression

[tele1]

Well, just for the heck of it I bought a pair of SR 60's to compare to my 325i's
Honestly, there is a difference but I don't know if the price difference can be justified. I can't say that one is better that the other, just different. I like them both and am glad I bought both. I auditioned the SR80's and 225's also and I liked them too.......Once again, different does not mean better just different. I think anyone who wants to try the Grado sound would be happy with the 60's (if they like Grado sound at all). I think I personally want them all............

 

[sonic_rage]

SR60s are indeed a sweet, value buy.

 

[mektarus]

A perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.

 

[angler31337]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mektarus A perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.

Huh? How does the purchase of two different goods (indeed, different by admission) illustrates a limiting concept relating to the production of goods which are explicitly homogenous? If I were you, I'd have started with the assumption that all headphones can be aggregated in the utility function in question, then made an appeal to diminishing marginal utility.

-Angler

(Suggesting slight and barely significant rewordings of economic and empirical conclusions since 1954...)

 

[mektarus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angler31337 Huh? How does the purchase of two different goods (indeed, different by admission) illustrates a limiting concept relating to the production of goods which are explicitly homogenous? If I were you, I'd have started with the assumption that all headphones can be aggregated in the utility function in question, then made an appeal to diminishing marginal utility. -Angler (Suggesting slight and barely significant rewordings of economic and empirical conclusions since 1954...)

These aren't two different goods at all. They are two products intended to serve the same purpose. I was certainly no economics majors but I think the law holds true in my example. The law states:

Quote:

When increasing amounts of one factor of production are employed in production along with a fixed amount of some other production factor, after some point, the resulting increases in output of product become smaller and smaller.

In this case the "output of product" is sound quality. Meaning that, the more you spend on a pair of headphones the less of an increase in sound quality you tend to get proportional to your expense. The current FoTM, the KSC75, is a perfect example. They can be had for less than $20 and yet sound very good. If you were to then buy a pair of $200 headphones it would be very unlikely that you would get 10x the performance.

Boy, I bet we just bored everybody away from this thread.

 

[BRefft]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mektarus
A perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.

Huh? How does the purchase of two different goods (indeed, different by admission) illustrates a limiting concept relating to the production of goods which are explicitly homogenous? If I were you, I'd have started with the assumption that all headphones can be aggregated in the utility function in question, then made an appeal to diminishing marginal utility.

-Angler

(Suggesting slight and barely significant rewordings of economic and empirical conclusions since 1954...)
__________________
Home Rig: Server - lame/ISO - Klipsch/Corda Aria - 4ft Cardas Cable - HD600
Portable Rig: Under Construction!
Ultraportable: iAudio U3 - lame - ER4P-24 73 Ohm Cable - ER-4P (triflange)



lmao

 

[Gibo]

i gota get me some grados soon

 

[angler31337]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mektarus These aren't two different goods at all.

Now hold the phone! (No pun intended.) If you are prepared to put in writing that you think all headphones are the same, we may need to put you in some sort of witness protection program or something. I'd contact Jude asap about deleting all your private data if I were you.

On an admittedly boring but more serious note, I'm starting to see what you were saying -- it wasn't really obvious in the previous post. With that said, I still think diminishing returns is the wrong way to go.

The problem is that you need to change headphones in order to affect a change in sound, and so by construction violate the assumptions of diminishing returns. The forgotten assumption is that only variable input is being changed. By your standards, I could take my DT131's, literally poor money onto them and affect a positive change in their sound quality. Hold on, for completeness I'll check to make sure it doesn't work. ... Nope, they still suck.

So. As before, I suggest to you that a more appropriate approach would be to assume a nicely behaved utility function for consumption of sound quality, where marginal gains in sound quality obviously proxies for headphone upgrades. Then it is trivial to demonstrate rigorously that diminishing marginal utility holds over the full range of consumption, and so you're done! (Though I will grant that what you were actually saying is a good bit harder to model than what I originally thought you were saying.)

-Angler

(Now in 34 different flavors of boring...)