[LinkPro]

It's just the idea of never having to pay MSRP that makes the HD 800 overpriced due to Sennheiser's pricing policy. If people pay $1500 and are happy with their purchase it's well worth it for them. Another cause may be that the HD 800 (and the T1) had no real competition back when they were introduced (around 2009) and both companies' flagships at that time were only around the $4-500 price point, and both the 800 and T1 were huge leaps above the HD650 or DT880 hence the MSRP were justified.

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

When they cost $1500 and make music sound dull and boring with a free treble spike, I'd say they are overpriced. But if you are rich and like your music served up in that manner, then they are worth it.

 
It is actually possible to dislike the sound signature of a headphone and not think they are overpriced...

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

 
It is actually possible to dislike the sound signature of a headphone and not think they are overpriced...

 
It is also actually possible to like the sound signature of a headphone and still think they are overpriced...

 

[GoldfishX]

If it were a more colored headphone, like a Grado (all which are overpriced to me, above the SR-80), I'd have more reservation. But that neutral sound coming through that soundstage lets the music do the talking. I'm having trouble finding something that sounds bad on them. Maybe I need to go rip some Iggy Pop at 64kbps...

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

 
It is also actually possible to like the sound signature of a headphone and still think they are overpriced...

 
Which I do not, and I explained why
 
You said you disliked the way they sounded, and so they are overpriced. This is obviously nonsense.

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

 
No, not if those headphones involved extensive R&D and require specialized materials and construction, like the HD-800.

 
Don't care how much R&D or materials they use... They could still sell them at about £600 and make a big profit.

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Don't care how much R&D or materials they use... They could still sell them at about £600 and make a big profit.

 
R&D and materials cost money, so no, they might not make a profit if they sell for cheaper. 

 

[meyner]

well you have to realize that the price tag placed on a product contrary to popular belief (and against Marx's belief) is more heavily effected by utility (idea brought forth by Baptise Say) rather than production cost. (although production cost is a important part of the equation as one of the four major factors of production) You can roughly gauge this utility by looking at the consumer surplus.

This consumer surplus means how much the customer is willing to pay for a product vs how much a customer actually paid for a product. Regardless of what the price may be on the market as a individual you buy a product because you believe that product is worth more money than the money you are exchanging for. as a individual if you buy a pack of gum for 25cent. It usually happens because the gum brought you more utility (satisfaction) than 25 cents would. Therefore by guaging the utility given by the product has a very big impact on the margin between production cost and the price of the product

Sennheiser is only placing a price on their product in the most rational manner based on consumer surplus so they can maximize their profit. If the difference between production cost and actual price is large (i would not know) it merely means that sennheiser is confident in terms of the satisfaction people obtain regardless of the price when comparing it to the general public.

I am not economist so if i have utilized faulty logic i apologize in advance.
 
edit:
 
I also forgot to add but the competitors also have a very large impact on the price in my opinion. Especially since HD 800 is Sennheiser's flagship product if they were to make it too cheap compared to their competitor's flagship the marketing staff in sennheiser would most definately be against it since it may adversely affect their brand image of one of the most high quality. Not only that but since high end headphone business is a bit of a oligopoly it is in the best interest of the companies to keep prices similar to each other instead of sparking a ruinous price war. (basic concept of game theory can be applied since it is a oligopoly like market where the barrier to entry is high)

 

[wink]

I believe nicholars thinks companies like Sennheiser are a charity and not a company who make product for profit.
 
20,000+ HD800 owners are happy with them to various degrees.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Aside from the business economics involved, even with Marketing (or what people attribute to it) taken out, the real question should be the value for the users. If you have $1,500 for headphones and $3,000 for the amp and source, what are the chances you might actually have enough space in your home for speakers? $1,000 on each (speakers, source, amp) or thereabouts (heck, there are $500 T-amps that are really good) means you still have around $1,500 or so for acoustic treatment. If you have around $5,000 for your system maybe you live in a house, not an apartment, so acoustic treatment may mean dealing with reflections and dampening rattling objects than it is about letting your neighbors sleep.

If for example you live in a flat downtown, even with a stock broker's salary your building might be solid enough but your neighbor relies much more on sleep rather than entertainment to shake off his stress at the courtroom, so then even if you had $10,000 for your audio system, you might want to go for $1,000++ headphones instead. Unless, of course, you can blow half of that budget on sound-proofing the room.

 

[meyner]

^(@Protegemaniac) lol yes, i completely agree. after-all value to the users/satisfaction = utility. The most important price determinant. I've also spent a good majority of my life in apartments or town houses rather than homes. So i've always distanced myself away from speaker system as well for that reason

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

 
Which I do not, and I explained why

 
Did I say you did?
 
Quote:

You said you disliked the way they sounded, and so they are overpriced. This is obviously nonsense.

 
So if I dislike the way they sound, I should think they are worth every penny then?

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

I believe nicholars thinks companies like Sennheiser are a charity and not a company who make product for profit.
 
20,000+ HD800 owners are happy with them to various degrees.

 
Nope I think Sennheiser are a relatively good company, but my personal opinion is that £1000+ for ANY pair of headphones is technically overpriced and they COULD sell them for less and still make a good profit. Even with R&D, materials etc. Price and if you think something is worth it is completely subjective but in my opinion the flagship headphones from all manufacturers are overpriced, Beyerdynamic, sennheiser, hifiman, STAX, LCD3... They are all objectively overpriced, but subjectively they may be worth the money to the buyer, most of those headphones could sell at 1/3 less and still make a good profit.
 
For the record I think that objectively most (non budget) hi-fi equipment is very overpriced, for what you are actually getting, hi-fi is a very overpriced industry, if I had the money I would spend 10k on a pair of floorstanding speakers, but it does not mean that that are not objectively overpriced and COULD be sold at a fair amount less and still make good profit.

 

[meyner]

Well the more conspicuous the brand, the larger the gap between price and production cost. Companies with very strong branding also join the club of collusion rather than competition as well. (oligopolies) This is because they're able to market themselves as more exclusive.
 
Although your probabily right that they can make good profit even if they lower the price, its only rational that companies price their products to make maximum profit. Of course this doesn't mean they can just price headphones as high as they can and expect high returns. Based on consumer surplus they will try to price their products as high as they can without alienating too much of their market customers hence the $1.4 k hd 800 in which the company thinks it can maximize it profit. Based on consumer surplus and expectations
 
Although no company will make a product that costs more to make than the price they sell (unless your subsized, cough* cough* american corn farmers and a good number of small european businesses). The production cost has a suprisingly smaller impact on pricing than one may think. (not to say its irrelevant) Although it sucks for us consumers, its the fate we must face when trying to purchase products with either strong brand names or oligpolyesq markets. (which i think high end headphones quality as both)

 

[nicholars]

The reason why I think they are overpriced is because someone like Sennheiser could blatantly design and make an almost perfect, reference quality headphone and sell it at £500 and still make a good profit. The problem with doing this is that they are undermining the whole pricing strategy of headphones, which is basically that you will always be getting sound which is in some way compromised, until you spend money on the flagship products, which are a big jump in price.
 
So if you are a bit of a perfectionist and want sound with hardly any compromises, you are eventually going to have to spend £700+ for a pair of flagship headphones, because that is the way they have designed the pricing strategy and headphone performance. If they release a perfect headphone at £500, they have just undermined the entire pricing strategy of all headphones from every manufacturer, this is why I don't think we will ever see flagship performance at low prices, not because they can't do it, but because they are trying to make money at the end of the day.