[obobskivich]

First, thank you very much for your blessing!
Second, thank you very much for your serious reply. I can see your sincerity. Appreciation!
Well, fair enough. I can appreciate you reply. Actually we may have some misunderstanding. After our previous conversation the day before yesterday, I discussed with other people who share similar point as you and I think we can understand each other. English is not my native language. Sometimes I cannot very clearly express my ideas or have no desire to put too much time to express it.
All in all, I can take your views. You are definitely reasonable. However, Something is definitely wrong with the Hifi industry, at least for some companies, as not a few people discussed here, including me.
I want to repeat again. I appreciate your views (but maybe not since I havn't read through all. It's too long ). That's why in the last reply, I emphasized we see from different perspectives. SO something you think it's normal, but I think there is something wrong. For examples, huge discount all the year round. You told me other areas have similar case. But this is not a satisfied answer to me. It cannot justify such phenomenon is normal. I just make an example from our discussion. So I don't think we can have effective conversion since we see problems from different perspectives.
Thank you for such conversations. BTW, I learn sth. about economy from you, which I have no any background. Thank you!

Certainly can abide different perspectives and civil discussion around those ideas, cheers!

Something I would add - you could absolutely sell me on the idea about "runaway pricing" in the hi-fi industry at large - like get away from headphones and get away from PC-based audio and look at things like $100,000 CD players, $300,000 amplifiers, million dollar speakers, etc. That stuff never existed in the past. You can go look through old Stereophile archives if you want to verify it - for example high end CD players in the 1980s or 1990s were maybe a few thousand US dollars, but today they can (no joke) get to the $100k range. Speakers too. I think this is where Currawong's point about "old, rich men" really comes into force - there are some companies that really only care about the nose-bleed ultra high end. Stereophile actually had a blog post about this a little while ago, but I'm not sure I could find it again - they mostly made the same point, and how "price creep" has turned $1k+ integrated amps into "value segment" or "entry level" when just a few years ago that was comfortably mid-range, and that there's not a good justification for the price hike in many cases. But headphone hi-fi as a niche I think has always done a good job, even with the outlier expensive offerings from brands like STAX, Ultrasone, Audeze, etc or the very expensive limited stuff from Sennheiser or HiFiMan.

Ya know...it IS possible that the manufacturers are doing both -- providing higher value at the low to mid-end and sticking it to those who aren't price-sensitive on the high-end...simple market segmentation.

Certainly this has merit, but apart from maybe Sennheiser and HiFiMan I don't see that as necessarily being the case, relative to one's definition of "price sensitive" - if $500 is "price sensitive" then sure you have a rock-solid case for such segmentation for most manufacturers (which has gone on for decades at this point), but if we're going to say that only stuff that outlies the extreme upper-end across historical prices (like $2-3k+) that basically means Orpheus, HE-1, Shangri-La, etc are what you're left with in the "high end." I think there is a degree of personal reality that will colour what is and isn't "price sensitive" in this context because its absolutely reasonable to say for some (or perhaps many) people that $500 is excessive, but it isn't like customers who only have $100-200 to spend are left out in the cold by either mainstream manufacturers, or newcomers. Whereas in other areas of hi-fi as a broader industry, that likely can become the case. And this line of reasoning reminds me of a very old thread in Summit-Fi titled something like "what is high end?" and after some unholy number of pages, the conclusion was basically "it has to cost a kidney" (yes I'm broadly generalizing but you get the idea), and certainly I think there's a degree of pushback against that notion when cost doesn't always correlate to performance (in some cases regardless of how we're defining performance). If that makes sense.

 

[yangian]

Certainly can abide different perspectives and civil discussion around those ideas, cheers!

Something I would add - you could absolutely sell me on the idea about "runaway pricing" in the hi-fi industry at large - like get away from headphones and get away from PC-based audio and look at things like $100,000 CD players, $300,000 amplifiers, million dollar speakers, etc. That stuff never existed in the past. You can go look through old Stereophile archives if you want to verify it - for example high end CD players in the 1980s or 1990s were maybe a few thousand US dollars, but today they can (no joke) get to the $100k range. Speakers too. I think this is where Currawong's point about "old, rich men" really comes into force - there are some companies that really only care about the nose-bleed ultra high end. Stereophile actually had a blog post about this a little while ago, but I'm not sure I could find it again - they mostly made the same point, and how "price creep" has turned $1k+ integrated amps into "value segment" or "entry level" when just a few years ago that was comfortably mid-range, and that there's not a good justification for the price hike in many cases. But headphone hi-fi as a niche I think has always done a good job, even with the outlier expensive offerings from brands like STAX, Ultrasone, Audeze, etc or the very expensive limited stuff from Sennheiser or HiFiMan.



Certainly this has merit, but apart from maybe Sennheiser and HiFiMan I don't see that as necessarily being the case, relative to one's definition of "price sensitive" - if $500 is "price sensitive" then sure you have a rock-solid case for such segmentation for most manufacturers (which has gone on for decades at this point), but if we're going to say that only stuff that outlies the extreme upper-end across historical prices (like $2-3k+) that basically means Orpheus, HE-1, Shangri-La, etc are what you're left with in the "high end." I think there is a degree of personal reality that will colour what is and isn't "price sensitive" in this context because its absolutely reasonable to say for some (or perhaps many) people that $500 is excessive, but it isn't like customers who only have $100-200 to spend are left out in the cold by either mainstream manufacturers, or newcomers. Whereas in other areas of hi-fi as a broader industry, that likely can become the case. And this line of reasoning reminds me of a very old thread in Summit-Fi titled something like "what is high end?" and after some unholy number of pages, the conclusion was basically "it has to cost a kidney" (yes I'm broadly generalizing but you get the idea), and certainly I think there's a degree of pushback against that notion when cost doesn't always correlate to performance (in some cases regardless of how we're defining performance). If that makes sense.

Cheers
Actually when I said there are some problems in Hifi industry, I didn't include those exceptional high-end products like Orphesus, HE-1 or those $300,000 amplifiers. I saw some in facebook. My understanding of those products is they didn't make them for profit. They make them to demonstrate their technical power. Like Sennheiser, they made Orphesus, they made HE-1, they just want to say: Look, I'm still #1 in headphone industry! Think about it: how much Sennheiser gain from selling HD600 and from Orphesus? They can sell whatever they want for those products. I don't care and I think few people care. When I defense my point, I didn't have those products in my mind.

 

[HiCZoK]

I wonder with headphones that has been around for ages... how their value and price is matching to when they were new/popular/not popular yet?

I am only 28 so I cannot say for sure but was Koss Porta pro considered good headphone hack then? was it more or less expensive?
Same with Sennheser hd600 and few other headphones

 

[Hutnicks]

Porta Pro has not really changed in price in all the years it has been around. It's place in the market is pretty much the same as it was back then too. That can also be said of the unsung bargain of the ESP 950 which is slightly cheaper now than it was then. It's sq still holds up magnificently and it is moddable to make it even better. The unlimited lifetime warranty on it still makes it king of the flagships. Just try getting that level of service from any of the other high enders.

 

[Harry Manback]

Uh, what? I have no idea what you're trying to say here, quite frankly. Using unrelated analogies just serves to muddy the discussion, and I don't think they're a good place to try and take the discussion. I don't think there is a "problem of audio marketing" though - as I've been through in this thread a few times. Its easy to go "OH GOD ITS ALL GETTING SO EXPENSIVE ITS A SCAM" but frankly that isn't the case - prices have not gone significantly "up" over the last 10-12 years (and in many cases haven't even kept pace with inflation), and the average level of performance that someone can get today (especially in the world of digital) has gotten incredibly good, and in some areas (e.g. DACs, amplifiers, etc) the prices have even gone down vs where they were at 10-15 years ago. So where is this supposed "problem" supposed to be taking place? You've insisted there's "crazy increasing price" and yet that's consistently shown to not be the case, so basically I think where we're at is the "put up or shut up" stage - cite your evidence/reasoning to show where this supposed "problem" is taking place that's (apparently) caused by "audio marketing run amok."

http://www.4ourears.net/gs2000e_p/4e-gs2000e.htm

These cost more than their younger brother, and sound like ass.

 

[Harry Manback]

I knew Schiit's story. They are convinced they sell the cheapest staff. That's the model that all companies should follow, I hope.

When I did the comparison, I use some flac file. They are not 24/192, but definitely better than mp3. I've already learned from my personal experience that the most important is the music files, not DAc, not amp., not phones.

BTW, curious why you don't use your high end DAP to listen to music on your car?

Listening to well recorded music on crappy headphones will sound crappy. Without good headphones, you can't fully appreciate the great recordings.

 

[Currawong]

I've been bugging people for years, to no avail, to post the music they listen to with impressions. It makes so much difference yet people don't do it.

 

[Hutnicks]

I've been bugging people for years, to no avail, to post the music they listen to with impressions. It makes so much difference yet people don't do it.

That is a pet peeve of mine. FOTD phones in particularly . Pressed hard enough at some time's you find the source is youtube which really ought to be an instant out for the process.

 

[TWerk]

I enjoy a lot of Youtube music. A good recording over youtube sounds great to these ears.

 

[Currawong]

It's mainly the genre and recording. People forget that music has a "frequency response" of sorts.

 

[Hutnicks]

It's mainly the genre and recording. People forget that music has a "frequency response" of sorts.

Sure does and that largely goes down to the recording process. As well complex music works out a phone far better than something with fewer instruments and vocals. So when you add in things like compression artifacts and mp3's notorious reduced soundstaging the selection of listening material becomes a fairly critical component in the mix.

 

[yangian]

Listening to well recorded music on crappy headphones will sound crappy. Without good headphones, you can't fully appreciate the great recordings.

Of course. I didn't mean one uses a $5 earphones from big lots to listen to some DSD files. This is a default fact.

 

[catscratch]

If you want it to stop, vote with your wallet. Don't buy the crazy overpriced stuff. Unfortunately, it won't matter, because even if you don't buy it, somebody else will.

Enthusiast markets become luxury markets over time. It's pure economics. There's just a lot more money to be made in luxury goods than in enthusiast goods from a manufacturer standpoint, and manufacturers are in it to make money. There will always be a niche for high-performance, value-oriented products but that niche is hard to fill, and will always be small.

Let's break this down a bit.

There are 3 groups of consumers out there, roughly, and leaving the professional market aside. First are the average consumers. They tend to buy whatever works well enough, and is the cheapest. They know value, but don't really know performance, or care. Making goods for average consumers is hard, because you have to manufacture on a massive scale in order to turn any profit. Most can't do that.

Then are the enthusiasts. They know performance, but don't always have deep pockets. Making products for them is difficult and often fruitless, because while they generate a lot of noise talking about products, they don't generate a whole lot of sales. But, there will always be a small niche in catering towards enthusiasts, though your products have to be well engineered and offer good value, which, again, is very hard.

Last are the luxury buyers. They buy things that make them feel special. Sometimes they know performance, but at other times not. They will buy the most expensive thing they can afford, as long as the ownership experience is rewarding. This is where the main profit margins are. Unfortunately for everybody else, developing high-performance products costs a lot of money, and doubly so when the potential market niche is limited. Higher production numbers = lower costs, so making esoteric, high performance products will always be expensive. If you want to recoup development costs and actually make money, you target your high-performance stuff at luxury buyers, cause they will be early adopters, and while some of them are discerning enough to know what's good and what's not, many aren't. This is the jackpot, while the enthusiast isn't worth the effort to bother with, and the average joe requires a ton of investment in manufacturing.

The moral is: enjoy the hobby while it lasts. It won't be around forever. Soon you'll be priced out, unless you're rich. In fact, most of us already are. And learn to DIY, eventually that'll be the only route. There will always be a few good value products like the HD600 around - there's a small but vocal niche for it - but the trend will be higher and higher prices, because you're not the buyer they have in mind.

Sucks, eh...

P.S. Lastly, let's not have rose-tinted glasses on when it comes to flagship prices. When the HD600 was shiny and new, the flagships were the R10, SR-Omega and Omega 2, HE60, HE90, and the like. Given inflation, they were if anything even more expensive than what we have today. They were just esoteric, and few and far between, whereas today, there are tons of luxury flagships, all the marketing effort seems to be directed at them, and models at the HD600 pricepoint tend to offer less performance and value. At the end of the day, the point stands, but expensive flagships have always existed.

 

[Whazzzup]

entertaining read

 

[Cassadian]

At the end of the day every individual will spend as much money as they believe is necessary to pursue their interest. I mean let's be real. The law of diminishing marginal utility exists. In I've seen plenty argue that past the price point of an HD 600/650 the price to performance ratio starts to drop off and the higher you go up the more rapidly so. But to some that minute increase in sound quality is worth the extra sum of money. If it makes them happy I won't argue otherwise.