Meyvn
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Posts
- 1,993
- Likes
- 13
I never really hear this subject discussed much here, only hinted at: psychology. placebo effect. prosumerism. Most of this is probably due to the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not (or cannot) appreciate quality headphones. And for awhile, you might look at that 100 dollar pair of Grados or E2c entry levels, and think, 'that's just so much money to spend on headphones.' Then you hear them for the first time, and it blows you away. Everyone says you're crazy; their 20 dollar cheapos are just as good as those. You just think it's good because it's expensive. You're just experiencing the placebo effect. Then you come here, and people are all saying the same things you are. Thousands of miles away, people are able to come to a general consensus about the general character of a headphone, and thus we know we're not crazy (in general). Therefore, I do not mean to pose the question: "Are these headphones really worth it?" Naturally, for many of us, the moment we "set foot" on these boards, that question was already answered in our minds. What I'm here to ask is this:
With that basic question aside, how much of our decisions about headphones is psychological, and how much is factual and real personal opinion?
What got me thinking about this was, among other things, the big debate about the AKG K701 that's been going on. I don't pretend to have experience or expert ears, so I'm not going to comment on that right now, but as I was deciding about my headphone purchase, I read a huge number of threads. There were all sorts of dynamics to the arguments on either side. One side claimed they sounded better in some applications than even the Sony MDR-R10s and the AKG K1000s. AKG themselves even compared the K701s to this higher end model. Many were reviled by this argument. How could a 300-400 dollar headphone rival their headphones that cost multiples of its price? For the purposes of this discussion, whether or not the K701 is that good is irrelevant. What I am getting at is: so what if it is? So what if the K701 is better than the MDR-R10? Would people, could people really accept it?
I guess it'd probably be easier if I put the question in terms that are not currently being warred over. This example actually may even be more to the point. Let's say tomorrow, Skullcandy decides to release a new set of open circumaural headphones which cost 35 dollars. Despite all possibility, logic, component costs, or anything else, these outmatch the Orpheus in sound quality, despite being dynamic, and economically priced. Could people accept it? Would you, would anyone believe it, even if it was true? Would your psychological aversion to a traditionally crappy brand and such a low pricepoint render you unable to make the judgment call? Are we really capable in this prosumer, capital-driven world to accept anything at face value?
Think about it. Get back to me.
With that basic question aside, how much of our decisions about headphones is psychological, and how much is factual and real personal opinion?
What got me thinking about this was, among other things, the big debate about the AKG K701 that's been going on. I don't pretend to have experience or expert ears, so I'm not going to comment on that right now, but as I was deciding about my headphone purchase, I read a huge number of threads. There were all sorts of dynamics to the arguments on either side. One side claimed they sounded better in some applications than even the Sony MDR-R10s and the AKG K1000s. AKG themselves even compared the K701s to this higher end model. Many were reviled by this argument. How could a 300-400 dollar headphone rival their headphones that cost multiples of its price? For the purposes of this discussion, whether or not the K701 is that good is irrelevant. What I am getting at is: so what if it is? So what if the K701 is better than the MDR-R10? Would people, could people really accept it?
I guess it'd probably be easier if I put the question in terms that are not currently being warred over. This example actually may even be more to the point. Let's say tomorrow, Skullcandy decides to release a new set of open circumaural headphones which cost 35 dollars. Despite all possibility, logic, component costs, or anything else, these outmatch the Orpheus in sound quality, despite being dynamic, and economically priced. Could people accept it? Would you, would anyone believe it, even if it was true? Would your psychological aversion to a traditionally crappy brand and such a low pricepoint render you unable to make the judgment call? Are we really capable in this prosumer, capital-driven world to accept anything at face value?
Think about it. Get back to me.