Headphones - Sound Quality v Sound

[gamerich]

 

 
 
Sound quality is a subjective matter. However, I think we can all generally agree on the frequency response, muddiness, detail, sound stage, etc.
 
Please note that when I say 'Sound Quality', I'm not taking into account the sound signature - some headphones have a warmer sound whereas others are more analytical but that doesn't mean any of the two are superior.
 
I made this little thing based on my opinion of what the sound quality to price ratio would generally look like.
 
I say generally because there are a number of exceptions such as cheap headphones that have superior sound and vice versa.
 
 
Explanation:
 
I find that the sound of headphones in the lower end of the price scale improve greatly the more you spend, up to about $300~$350 - hence the steep incline.
 
After about $350, the the ratio between the clearly audible improvements and price is not as great but nonetheless evident until we come to the ~$1000 price range.
 
Past ~$1000 the improvement to sound quality is relatively minuscule (please don't eat me, audiophiles

). At this stage, we're looking at very minor differences - hence the plateau.
 
The scaling is also purposely inconsistent as I think that the number of headphones is not evenly distributed across the price range, but rather generally massed below ~$350.
 
NOTE: Although the curve doesn't show it, the sound to price ratio isn't such as smooth ascent, but rather quite erratic due to the wild variations. (thanks billybob_jcv)
 
So, what are your opinions?
 
EDIT: Updated the graph and shifted scale/explanation. (thanks Brooko)

 

[Brooko]

Please refine price - are we talking 'street' or MSRP?

 

[billybob_jcv]

I think the bottom of the curve is not nearly so smooth. There are wild variations in price vs performance. If only it was as easy as "spend more get more" - it isn't!

 

[gamerich]

Quote:

Please refine price - are we talking 'street' or MSRP?

 
I was mostly considering the street price for a pair of new headphones.
 
Quote:

I think the bottom of the curve is not nearly so smooth. There are wild variations in price vs performance. If only it was as easy as "spend more get more" - it isn't!

 
I agree on the wild variations but in my opinion, wouldn't the curve would still be smooth if we're talking average? For example, the $80 headphones that sound (relatively) good make up for the $80 ones that sound bad.
 
I'm still quite new to this headphone scene so all of your inputs are very much welcome and helpful. 

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

I think the bottom of the curve is not nearly so smooth. There are wild variations in price vs performance. If only it was as easy as "spend more get more" - it isn't!

 
Agree with this, and just in general terms I'd move the steepest part of the curve (if we're talking 'street' value) into the USD 175 - USD 300/350 region.
 
It's in there that you get a lot of the more former flagships - which are still considered excellent value today + also the upper end of the more budget offerings.  A few examples .......
 
DT880 / DT990
K701 / K702 / Q701
HD 598 / HD 600
 
Also in there would be headphones like the SRH840, Mad-Dogs, upper end Grado SR series.
 
I personally believe it's the approximate price point where you get the greatest 'bang-for-your-buck'

 

[gamerich]

Quote:

 
Agree with this, and just in general terms I'd move the steepest part of the curve (if we're talking 'street' value) into the USD 175 - USD 300/350 region.
 
It's in there that you get a lot of the more former flagships - which are still considered excellent value today + also the upper end of the more budget offerings.  A few examples .......
 
DT880 / DT990
K701 / K702 / Q701
HD 598 / HD 600
 
Also in there would be headphones like the SRH840, Mad-Dogs, upper end Grado SR series.
 
I personally believe it's the approximate price point where you get the greatest 'bang-for-your-buck'

 
 
Updated the graph. What do you reckon?

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

Updated the graph. What do you reckon?

 
The curve represents sound quality compared to $$ spent.  At $350 (on your changed graph) you are only 1/2 way on the quality curve.  Yet at $1000 you're above 90%.  This means (rounded terms) that if you triple the price you get double the quality.  I don't think that's the case.
 
IMO - by the time you get to $350, you should be about 70-80% up the quality scale - after that the remaining 20-30% is spread across the next $600++
 
For the most part your quality sub $70 is going to be pretty low for the most part (a lot of' 'crap' lives down there generally).  Above that you start to climb.  Post $300-$350 quality gain vs $$$ spent will flatten off.  It'll still claim - but that's your major point of diminishing return.
 
Of course this is just IMO.

 

[Kiont]

I think most people are aware of this, the higher you go in price the less quality increase you get. To the point that there is a big premium for a relative small improvement (ie LCD-2 > LCD-3)
 
I agree, around that $300-$400 is where you'll find the most value.