[retskrad]

Well because of diminishing returns. I bought the ATH-M50 for $100 and the hd650 for $500, they are not 5 times better, there are subtle differences, but nowhere near the 500% increase in price. Maybe its 10% better, in my opinion. And then comes the hd650 to the lcd2, and the difference in sound fidelity is probably closer to 5%, because the higher you go, the less increase in sound you'll get.
 
Its like going to the gym and doing the first set of bench press. Every set after the first will make less and less of a difference all the way down to single digit differences in muscle tear down, so why bother right, with so much effort and so little gain? 

 

[KG Jag]

  Well because of diminishing returns. I bought the ATH-M50 for $100 and the hd650 for $500, they are not 5 times better, there are subtle differences, but nowhere near the 500% increase in price. Maybe its 10% better, in my opinion. And then comes the hd650 to the lcd2, and the difference in sound fidelity is probably closer to 5%, because the higher you go, the less increase in sound you'll get.
 
Its like going to the gym and doing the first set of bench press. Every set after the first will make less and less of a difference all the way down to single digit differences in muscle tear down, so why bother right with so much effort and so little gain? 

So then about $100 is that magic number.
 
Same thing is true with cars and many, many other products.

 

[retskrad]

Yes of course, but It was a response to your statement that it destroys the he-400, which by the way I found is a faulty product because of the treble spike, it hurts my ear. A headphone should never hurt your ears, that is a faulty design IMO.. Another mans garbage is another mans treasure, right?
 
Maybe it all comes comes to preference.

 

[Arnotts]

  Well because of diminishing returns. I bought the ATH-M50 for $100 and the hd650 for $500, they are not 5 times better, there are subtle differences, but nowhere near the 500% increase in price. Maybe its 10% better, in my opinion. And then comes the hd650 to the lcd2, and the difference in sound fidelity is probably closer to 5%, because the higher you go, the less increase in sound you'll get.
 
Its like going to the gym and doing the first set of bench press. Every set after the first will make less and less of a difference all the way down to single digit differences in muscle tear down, so why bother right, with so much effort and so little gain? 

 
This is totally off-topic, but if your aim is to build muscle or gain strength, doing the first set and avoiding pushing your body is going to do pretty much nothing for you.
 
And in terms of the way you're comparing the prices of headphones, it's also not that simple, imo. Different headphones offer different presentations of music. Some may be straight upgrades compared to other models. Some may just offer different presentations. You also need an audio chain with sufficient quality to hear improvements properly.
 
I haven't heard HD650's or ATH-M50's myself. But they aren't generally considered similar headphones. So when you say something like "HD650's might be 10% better than ATH-M50's", it sounds pretty odd. M50's are closed headphones that have a V shaped frequency response curve, with some bass emphasis and pretty sparkly top end. They're considered good value headphones for contemporary music because they don't need an amp and have a suitable sound signature. HD650's are considered smooth, unfatiguing, laid back and very neutral. They would offer different presentations of sound, not something that is necessarily better than the other.
 
Either way, though, if you think HD650's are poor value, then you can save yourself a lot of money by being completely satisfied with M50's

 

 

[KG Jag]

  Yes of course, but It was a response to your statement that it destroys the he-400, which by the way I found is a faulty product because of the treble spike, it hurts my ear. A headphone should never hurt your ears, that is a faulty design IMO.. Another mans garbage is another mans treasure, right?
 
Maybe it all comes comes to preference.

 
Check the thread again, it was not I who said the LCD-2 "destroys" the HD 400.  In fact my post #19 above is quite to the contrary of that position.
 
Just because you find the treble of the HE-400 hurt your ears, this is not a universal experience.  It does not ipso facto make the HE-400 a defective product.  Many find Grados, Beyers and other cans to provide a harsh and even painful presentation of treble.  But at least as many don't and even find them to good to excellent in the presentation of treble.  I have the same problem with some Senn IEM's, but others don't.
 
Quality headphone music presentation is far more than personal preference and even how our personal biology processes certain sounds.  But yes--personal preference can be of great importance concerning which cans you prefer (and/or dislike)--but again the same is true of cars and many other products and services.

 

[retskrad]

   
This is totally off-topic, but if your aim is to build muscle or gain strength, doing the first set and avoiding pushing your body is going to do pretty much nothing for you.
 
And in terms of the way you're comparing the prices of headphones, it's also not that simple, imo. Different headphones offer different presentations of music. Some may be straight upgrades compared to other models. Some may just offer different presentations. You also need an audio chain with sufficient quality to hear improvements properly.
 
I haven't heard HD650's or ATH-M50's myself. But they aren't generally considered similar headphones. So when you say something like "HD650's might be 10% better than ATH-M50's", it sounds pretty odd. M50's are closed headphones that have a V shaped frequency response curve, with some bass emphasis and pretty sparkly top end. They're considered good value headphones for contemporary music because they don't need an amp and have a suitable sound signature. HD650's are considered smooth, unfatiguing, laid back and very neutral. They would offer different presentations of sound, not something that is necessarily better than the other.
 
Either way, though, if you think HD650's are poor value, then you can save yourself a lot of money by being completely satisfied with M50's

 

 
Of course, I meant after 3-5 sets of strength training, the subsequent sets will be low gain and not worth risking recovery for the next session.
 
Regarding different sound signatures, you're right, absolutely, but what I was saying was  that I found sound fidelity (details, tone, timbre, etc whatever you all it) was not increasing past a certain price. A dt880 to the hd800 might be a step forward, but is it worth $1500 versus the $250? Well you could say its like fine wine, I don't taste a difference between a Walmart and an expensive one, but whatever floats your boat .

 

[Arnotts]

   
Of course, I meant after 3-5 sets of strength training, the subsequent sets will be low gain and not worth risking recovery for the next session.
 
Regarding different sound signatures, you're right, absolutely, but what I was saying was  that I found sound fidelity (details, tone, timbre, etc whatever you all it) was not increasing with price.

Fair enough. It might be expected that a more expensive headphone will just provide an overall increase in sound fidelity. I personally think that an increase in fidelity can only occur by increasing the weak link in your audio chain.
 
Source material (the quality of the recording and the quality of your music files) ----> quality of your DAC -----> quality of your amp ------> quality of your headphones -----> quality of the sound that you hear (there's also the factor of your ability to focus on and listen to fine details, but most people can hear the general differences between good quality sound and poor quality sound)
 
The quality of the sound that your headphones produce is limited by the weakest link in your audio chain. If your headphones are the weak link, upgrading them to a more resolving pair should give you extra fidelity. If you listen to poorly recorded tracks, you won't hear "better" music from upgrading your headphones. If you use a low quality DAC/amp (like on-board audio) you are, again, limiting the quality that you'll hear at the end of the chain.

 

[money4me247]

  Maybe it all comes comes to preference.

Yes, a lot of things in the hobby is subjective and whether a certain pair of headphones are "worth" it does depend whether they match your preferred sound signature.
 

  Just because you find the treble of the HE-400 hurt your ears, this is not a universal experience.  It does not ipso facto make the HE-400 a defective product.  Many find Grados, Beyers and other cans to provide a harsh and even painful presentation of treble.  But at least as many don't and even find them to good to excellent in the presentation of treble.  I have the same problem with some Senn IEM's, but others don't.
 
Quality headphone music presentation is far more than personal preference and even how our personal biology processes certain sounds.  But yes--personal preference can be of great importance concerning which cans you prefer (and/or dislike)--but again the same is true of cars and many other products and services.

Yea, I would agree with this. There are some subtle 'technical' improvements in sonic qualities that you can sometimes observe beyond just personal preference, but I do think that how well the overall sound signature matches your own personal preference is the most important aspect when shopping for headphones.
 

  Fair enough. It might be expected that a more expensive headphone will just provide an overall increase in sound fidelity. I personally think that an increase in fidelity can only occur by increasing the weak link in your audio chain.
 
Source material (the quality of the recording and the quality of your music files) ----> quality of your DAC -----> quality of your amp ------> quality of your headphones -----> quality of the sound that you hear (there's also the factor of your ability to focus on and listen to fine details, but most people can hear the general differences between good quality sound and poor quality sound)
 
The quality of the sound that your headphones produce is limited by the weakest link in your audio chain. If your headphones are the weak link, upgrading them to a more resolving pair should give you extra fidelity. If you listen to poorly recorded tracks, you won't hear "better" music from upgrading your headphones. If you use a low quality DAC/amp (like on-board audio) you are, again, limiting the quality that you'll hear at the end of the chain.

 
That is true to a degree. However, there is a point when it makes no significant difference to upgrade. Some audio components (dacs/amps) can be considered to be audible transparent. Audibly transparent equipment should should identical to each other.
 
Source does have the biggest impact on sound quality. However, headphones definitely have a bigger impact on sound over dacs/amps. Even if the dac/amp or other components or cables are the weakest link in your chain, upgrading your source file prior to lossless formats will always improve the sound more than upgrading your dac/amp as the source file contributes more to sound. I believe the same applies for headphones as headphones have more influence over the sound quality you hear than the additional components. from personal experience. ymmv.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Yes, a lot of things in the hobby is subjective and whether a certain pair of headphones are "worth" it does depend whether they match your preferred sound signature.

Yea, I would agree with this. There are some subtle 'technical' improvements in sonic qualities that you can sometimes observe beyond just personal preference, but I do think that how well the overall sound signature matches your own personal preference is the most important aspect when shopping for headphones.


That is true to a degree. However, there is a point when it makes no significant difference to upgrade. Some audio components (dacs/amps) can be considered to be audible transparent. Audibly transparent equipment should should identical to each other.

Source does have the biggest impact on sound quality. However, headphones definitely have a bigger impact on sound over dacs/amps. Even if the dac/amp or other components or cables are the weakest link in your chain, upgrading your source file prior to lossless formats will always improve the sound more than upgrading your dac/amp as the source file contributes more to sound. I believe the same applies for headphones as headphones have more influence over the sound quality you hear than the additional components. from personal experience. ymmv.

Yes and no. With each component in the chain, there is a minimum level of quality required. If you are below that minimum, then upgrading to above the minimum will be a significant change. Going from a poor recording ripped at 8Kbps to a great recording ripped to lossless is a huge impact on the sound. But going from 320Kbps to FLAC from the same recording is marginal at best. The same goes for all the other components. If your source material is reasonable quality, meaning it came from a good recording and was ripped to 256Kbps or higher, then I claim that changing your headphones can have a much more significant effect to your overall sound than changing your source material. The difference between the Grado 325 and the V-Moda M100 is a much more significant change than going from 256Kbps to FLAC of the same recording.

 

[money4me247]

Yes and no. With each component in the chain, there is a minimum level of quality required. If you are below that minimum, then upgrading to above the minimum will be a significant change. Going from a poor recording ripped at 8Kbps to a great recording ripped to lossless is a huge impact on the sound. But going from 320Kbps to FLAC from the same recording is marginal at best. The same goes for all the other components. If your source material is reasonable quality, meaning it came from a good recording and was ripped to 256Kbps or higher, then I claim that changing your headphones can have a much more significant effect to your overall sound than changing your source material. The difference between the Grado 325 and the V-Moda M100 is a much more significant change than going from 256Kbps to FLAC of the same recording.

yea, i actually agree with this.
 
what i posted above is more a rule of thumb. at 320kbps LAME mp3 encoding, the differences between that & FLAC is very subtle. still the general rule does apply that headphones & source have an immensely greater impact than other components in your chain.

 

[CheesyHoDogPuff]

I guess it's just my number. I'm just saying past $500 the ratio of price performance decreases dramatically. I mean, think about it. Compare the HD600 or HD650 to the HD800. Will the HD800 sound better? Yes, but maybe by 5-10%. Is it really worth the extra grand?

 

[Solrighal]

I guess it's just my number. I'm just saying past $500 the ratio of price performance decreases dramatically. I mean, think about it. Compare the HD600 or HD650 to the HD800. Will the HD800 sound better? Yes, but maybe by 5-10%. Is it really worth the extra grand?

My answer to your question will depend on whether I win the Euromillions or not.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Exactly. Trying to define how good is "good enough" completely depends on the individuals own idea of value. The entire lines of Audeze & Stax headphones, plus the HD800, Fostex TH900, AKG K812, Beyer T1, HiFiMan HE-6, Abyss, etc wouldn't exist if *someone* didn't think they were worth the money.

 

[MorrisL]

The entire lines of Audeze & Stax headphones, plus the HD800, Fostex TH900, AKG K812, Beyer T1, HiFiMan HE-6, Abyss, etc wouldn't exist if *someone* didn't think they were worth the money.

 
They sure as hell would exist. People aren't rational, for the most part. They buy into advertising and hype all too easily. They buy expensive cables, headphone amps costing several thousand dollars (a laughable idea) and all kinds of other junk.
 
I agree with OP. Diminishing returns should be on everybody's mind here. I think we should greet new members with a newer, wiser "Sorry about your wallet, and don't forget the diminishing returns!"

 

[billybob_jcv]

They sure as hell would exist. People aren't rational, for the most part. They buy into advertising and hype all too easily. They buy expensive cables, headphone amps costing several thousand dollars (a laughable idea) and all kinds of other junk.

I agree with OP. Diminishing returns should be on everybody's mind here. I think we should greet new members with a newer, wiser "Sorry about your wallet, and don't forget the diminishing returns!"

I think we're saying the same thing. All I'm saying is that if people weren't willing to buy them, then manufacturers wouldn't make the products.

IMHO, the idea of diminishing returns is entirely personal. Some people are willing to drop thousands of dollars and it's of absolutely no consequence to them. Others see diminishing returns for anything over $50. I absolutely agree that most people that come to head-fi for the first time aren't looking to spend thousands, and value should be part of their criteria - but I think the concept of value is NOT something anyone else can set for them. They need to set that for themselves. If someone sets a budget and sound preference, I'll happily give suggestions to meet those requirements. If someone wants the "best value" headphones or wants to know if an upgrade is "worth the price", then I'm out - I can't answer that question for them.