[Currawong]

I mostly agree with @catscratch except that I don't believe we'll be "priced out of the market". The main argument of the OP was that prices will rise for products of the same level of performance as they have done in the 2-channel hi-fi world. There is plenty of solid evidence that that is not happening overall, even if a couple of manufacturers are going that way. Given the number of manufacturers who were "made" by the enthusiast market, they rely on us, and we're hard on how well their products perform. Not only that, with the internet, the viscous circle via magazine product reviews and hype is easily broken. If manufacturers move away from the community that made them, then others will take their place.

 

[Dobrescu George]

I mostly agree with @catscratch except that I don't believe we'll be "priced out of the market". The main argument of the OP was that prices will rise for products of the same level of performance as they have done in the 2-channel hi-fi world. There is plenty of solid evidence that that is not happening overall, even if a couple of manufacturers are going that way. Given the number of manufacturers who were "made" by the enthusiast market, they rely on us, and we're hard on how well their products perform. Not only that, with the internet, the viscous circle via magazine product reviews and hype is easily broken. If manufacturers move away from the community that made them, then others will take their place.

We know how easily an unsatisfied customer can break a product though.

It is almost unavoidable that some products will aspire to cost more for better sonic abilities, but they will probably hit a brick wall after which the research needed to produce it along with the manufacturing process will not even the cost of marketing and all the other costs anymore keeping in mind the number of units sold. Precise example: Senn He-1. It is a statement in the Audio Industry, but they sold very very few units, if they didn't already have a whole factory and a large production line and research labs along with their reputation, it might be possible that producing and selling those might result in very little profit and lots of effort.

I always appreciate fairly priced items because Romania is a country with less than 300$ minimum wage and we are grown to be budget oriented, but seeing some of the technological advancements some companies have come with I always smile and cheer those.

It is only a matter of time before those technologies will reach the general customer market, future mid-fi will have the current high end sound, and so on.

There was a time, a few years ago, when 10$ buds didn't sound as good as today's 10$ buds do. I'm pretty sure we're going in the right way.

I haven't owned a speaker setup yet but I heard that you can get a summit-fi sound with less than 1000$ in the speaker world, so there's that.

 

[obobskivich]

I mostly agree with @catscratch except that I don't believe we'll be "priced out of the market". The main argument of the OP was that prices will rise for products of the same level of performance as they have done in the 2-channel hi-fi world. There is plenty of solid evidence that that is not happening overall, even if a couple of manufacturers are going that way. Given the number of manufacturers who were "made" by the enthusiast market, they rely on us, and we're hard on how well their products perform. Not only that, with the internet, the viscous circle via magazine product reviews and hype is easily broken. If manufacturers move away from the community that made them, then others will take their place.

I feel mostly the same about @catscratch's post. While I wouldn't be surprised to see someone come out with a $10,000+ headphone at some point in the not so far away future, I don't think we're going to see headphones become exclusively like that. And I think the 2-channel world is a good representation of that - sure there are plenty of $100k+ things you can spend money on that didn't exist historically, but there are also plenty of value-oriented and more "pedestrian" high end products that continue to be released, because ultimately that's where big companies make big profits. The ultra expensive stuff has very low volume and requires significant more work to sell (again go and look at Stoddard's book and his explanations for why Schiit doesn't pursue the nose-bleed insane prices), and that's only offset by their very high margins - it becomes a feedback loop at some point I'm sure. But like Wal-mart, they make their money through volume, and average people aren't buying HD 800s every time they need new headphones, and they probably aren't doing hundreds of thousands of units a year. Even the manufacturers who do have ultra high priced cans have also not "abandoned" the meat and potatoes of pricing for mere mortals, like Ultrasone, Sennheiser, AKG, etc, and the companies that started out in the very expensive end of the pool, like Audeze, are coming downmarket to try and make more money too. Also +1 to Dobrescu George's point about "what you could get a few years ago for $10 isn't as good as what you can get today" and I think that's largely due to trickle-down ++ higher consumer expectations (IOW if you're going to position a halo car to get buyers in the door, the pony cars still better offer something decent or you're not gonna make many sales).

 

[yangian]

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.

This is well-saying! Exactly. Expensive luxury products always exist. But (to me at least) a health market should have more and more cost efficiency products. Just like PC, camera whatever. I remember I bought a digital camera in 2000, which cost me more than $500. Today, you may not be able to find such low performance products or maybe $50, I'm not sure. at least, electrical products should have such trend. However, in hifi industry, It's another story. A little improvement of performance may cost several times expense! That's why I think something is wrong. It's unhealthy.

 

[yangian]

We know how easily an unsatisfied customer can break a product though.

It is almost unavoidable that some products will aspire to cost more for better sonic abilities, but they will probably hit a brick wall after which the research needed to produce it along with the manufacturing process will not even the cost of marketing and all the other costs anymore keeping in mind the number of units sold. Precise example: Senn He-1. It is a statement in the Audio Industry, but they sold very very few units, if they didn't already have a whole factory and a large production line and research labs along with their reputation, it might be possible that producing and selling those might result in very little profit and lots of effort.

I always appreciate fairly priced items because Romania is a country with less than 300$ minimum wage and we are grown to be budget oriented, but seeing some of the technological advancements some companies have come with I always smile and cheer those.

It is only a matter of time before those technologies will reach the general customer market, future mid-fi will have the current high end sound, and so on.

There was a time, a few years ago, when 10$ buds didn't sound as good as today's 10$ buds do. I'm pretty sure we're going in the right way.

I haven't owned a speaker setup yet but I heard that you can get a summit-fi sound with less than 1000$ in the speaker world, so there's that.

I think you need to appreciate Chinese DIY industry!
I'm curious why Chinese DIY focused on earphones. Not many DIY headphones. Anticipating more and more DIY headphones. Then there will be more and more cost-effective products for people all over the world.

 

[Harry Manback]

@yangian has hit the nail on the head. The power of the Chinese manufacturing capability is already resulting in earphones that are as good or better than the brand names we know, and at a TENTH of the cost. I bought a KZ ZS5 on Amazon for about $40 shipped. They sound amazing. I hope they start on headphones with gusto! It may just cause a price correction. It could also drive innovators out of business. Time will tell. Patent enforcement isn't a barrier from what I have seen. Even monoprice is offering planars that get great reviews and for only $300. I bet they are made in China, and good for them!

 

[Harry Manback]

Lol - check the thread postcount onthe last post. It said 232 of 231 after my last post...

Sorry for the off topic post, I just find that funny!

 

[obobskivich]

This is well-saying! Exactly. Expensive luxury products always exist. But (to me at least) a health market should have more and more cost efficiency products. Just like PC, camera whatever. I remember I bought a digital camera in 2000, which cost me more than $500. Today, you may not be able to find such low performance products or maybe $50, I'm not sure. at least, electrical products should have such trend. However, in hifi industry, It's another story. A little improvement of performance may cost several times expense! That's why I think something is wrong. It's unhealthy.

Something to throw a "wrench" in those works: all of the various markets you're describing have objective performance criteria that people the world over can largely agree on as metrics for determining "is this better." That doesn't exist for headphones. So in order to be able to make a case for "continuous marked improvement over time" you'd first have to have a way to measure that, that consumers, designers, manufacturers, retailers, etc can agree upon. I think it is probably fair to say that *on average* headphones of today are better than headphones of 2000, or 1980, or whatever, but again that's a generalization - you can foul that argument by citing something like the ESP/950 or LNS that have been around for ages and still "measure good" and command a following of enthusiasts.

And I'd absolutely agree that a lot of headphone makers are quite a ways from getting towards some sort of unified measurement/standard for performance. The Harman target response curve is a step in that direction, but I'm not sure its fair to say its the best step, or should be regarded as the last step. But certainly it is something that we haven't had before. I think reviewers like InnerFidelity and GoldenEars gaining traction/popularity also helps push towards this, because there's a greater degree of accountability for manufacturers who want to sell into the community - which is exactly where those other markets you've used as examples started out in the 1970s-80s and overall I'd say that yes, its been a positive "win" for consumers as a result.

 

[Headzone]

Sub 100$ headphone are more than good enough.

 

[Headzone]

the whole head-fi sell their headphones (to mixing artists) should go to fs section etc.

 

[Whazzzup]

Sub 100$ headphone are more than good enough.

not for me

 

[Dobrescu George]

not for me

Me neither! Need that juicy high quality headphones to be satisfied!

 

[yangian]

Something to throw a "wrench" in those works: all of the various markets you're describing have objective performance criteria that people the world over can largely agree on as metrics for determining "is this better." That doesn't exist for headphones. So in order to be able to make a case for "continuous marked improvement over time" you'd first have to have a way to measure that, that consumers, designers, manufacturers, retailers, etc can agree upon. I think it is probably fair to say that *on average* headphones of today are better than headphones of 2000, or 1980, or whatever, but again that's a generalization - you can foul that argument by citing something like the ESP/950 or LNS that have been around for ages and still "measure good" and command a following of enthusiasts.

And I'd absolutely agree that a lot of headphone makers are quite a ways from getting towards some sort of unified measurement/standard for performance. The Harman target response curve is a step in that direction, but I'm not sure its fair to say its the best step, or should be regarded as the last step. But certainly it is something that we haven't had before. I think reviewers like InnerFidelity and GoldenEars gaining traction/popularity also helps push towards this, because there's a greater degree of accountability for manufacturers who want to sell into the community - which is exactly where those other markets you've used as examples started out in the 1970s-80s and overall I'd say that yes, its been a positive "win" for consumers as a result.

I agree. People's hearing is too different. listening view is too subjective. That might be the main reason of nowadays situation.

 

[HumbleMan]

The inflation in headphones prices is running amok. It's not that long time ago that "flagship" headphones, like HD600 and its predecessors, cost below $500... and that was considered quite rich for a pair of cans at the time. Sure, Stax was the odd one out, with some of its offerings costing an order of magnitude more, but they were always more of an exotic singularity than a real-world alternative. And there were some other pricey offerings, such as K1000 and the various hardwood cupped Denons, but the median price for a pair of high-end cans was still solidly anchored to earth.

It was around this time that the mainstream interest for headphones started to grow exponentially. This was of course driven in part by the younger generations affinity for portability and convenience but in no small part also for budgetary reasons. Young people tend to have less money (I know, it's unfair) but I don't think this is the only reason because most MP3 youngsters couldn't give a rat's arse to the quality and experience afforded by high-end audio. Instead, I think there was also a mass exodus of audiophiles and enthusiasts from traditional home audio that for a decade or so had experienced a tremendous inflation in hi-fi gear (e.g. compare the cost of a pair of B&W 801 Matrix to the same mfg's flagship today, in real dollars... not to mention those +$1m offerings from other more "exotic" producers...). This development, not saved for long by the attempt to migrate and reignite the interest of the crowd over to home theater (which quickly got even more costly if you wanted to maintain quality), IMHO played a big part in if not killing then at least decimating the interest and potential consumers in the high-end home audio space. The flight to the headphone space was I believe very much a reaction to this development, this feeling of abandonment, inaccessibility and greed by the audio manufacturers.

This is also why it worries me so much that we have been seeing the same development in personal audio of late. Since the HD650 (which was a more acceptable price increase over the HD600), it's just got ridiculous, with big jumps in price (typically 50-100% for each new generation, every 12-24mo) first with $1,000-1,500 offerings (Audeze's and HifiMan's first models being good cases in point), "forcing" also Senn to follow suit with the HD800 (because you don't want your offering to come across as inferior based on price alone, now do you?). Consequently, the others had to up their game so to speak (price-wise at least, quality-wise is debatable) with another step-up in prices, now approaching the $2k mark (e.g. LCD-X). Now the latest "must-have flagships" (LCD-4, Focal Utopia, WM1Z etc) are about $3k!!

I'll be the first one to appreciate the R&D, craftsmanship and incremental improvements that go into these products but these things are supposed to come with time anyway, without a huge premium increase annually, at least in a competitive market economy. That very economy which pretty much has been non-inflationary since Lehman by the way....

I think the headphone industry is becoming a victim of its own success, attracting more suppliers (not only cans but also amps, DACs, cables etc), all trying to come across as better than peers by price positioning their latest offering just above everybody else's. Sure global demographics and the emergence of a middle class with strong purchasing power in countries like China, India, Russia etc means a bigger market potentially, but I'm afraid that the little bang-for-the-buck haven that this space has been for audiophiles for some time will face the same decay as that experienced by home audio hobbyists due to ramping inflation for the best products. Sad but true.

It's got to stop. Massdrop can't save us all...

Words of wisdom. I remember back when headphones were cheaper many many years ago. Even a decade ago, before the HD800 came out, it was rare to find a non-electrostatic headphone above $$$. Now, returning to Head-fi after a long absence, I see so many names I don't recognize and so many prices I don't understand. Meanwhile, I've gone in the other direction. I sold all of my expensive headphones (HD650, K701, PS1000, 325i) after stumbling upon the SR850, HD668B, and SR950, and realizing, as a few others have, that these matched headphones costing up to 40x more. I'm not interested in chasing the dragon's tail. Not anymore. I wish everyone luck on their journey.

 

[Hutnicks]

Well I hope Focal is working on the Utopia V2 since the sound signature for the Innerfidelity 2016 Product of the Year and 'World's Best Headphone' was actually an outlier that is ~5db different from roughly 3 to 10Khz than what the majority of them actually measure!

This isn't to say that some people won't find that the Utopia V1 is a great product for $4K...I'm sure they do. But...can you imagine that little nagging voice in their head? 'It better be, I paid $4K for it!


Well...maybe two or three reviews this time!

EDIT: The $4K hits keep coming!...just looked at Innerfidelity's home page and the LCD4's may have some issues.
For this price, I'd expect distortion, channel balance, etc. to not be an issue. Factory QC should be exceptional.
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-lcd-4-measurements-and-little-help-readers

Odd that when the Tascam TH 02 at 25 bucks a copy shows absolutely no distortion whatsoever from the same measurement sources. That alone should make us all question the veracity of the allmighty powers that be who are telling us to spend 2 months of a mortgage payment on a headphone.