[darknessproz]

I have nothing against AKG re-branding their headphones using celebrity endorsement. It's just that the product SHOULD NOT be marketed to its target audience (average consumer). It will screw with AKG's reputation if an average consumer buys a pair of Q701, runs them out of an ipod and complains about how horrible they sound.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Question: morality is subjective, but isn't it obvious that this really deceptive to the consumer?

A rational morality is based on demonstrable harm to other humans (or other sentient beings if you want to get all sci-fi) and this clear deception will almost surely casue financial harm to someone who will buy them on the assumption that they sound different and/or better than the plain K701/K702s.  Therefore, assuming you agree with my assumptions for a rational morality, this is demonstrably immoral to some degree.

 

[autonomous]

"Assuming" and, "almost certainly" is not exactly empirical proof maverikronin and not demonstrable. You have to really want to believe using that criteria to claim a moral high ground.

 

[DavidMahler]

Autonomous I'm gonna play devil's advocate and try one more time....
 
I'm gonna create an example personal to head-fi.
 
My creative example has NOTHING to do with the vendors I choose to make up a story about. But I'm going to use Ray Samuels Audio and Stephen Hoffman.

Again this is just a made-up example made by me...
 
Let's say:
 
Ray released a new product.  Let's say he called it the SH52.  And it was new tube amp.  And RSA had an article done in Stereotimes and 6moons and Stephen Hoffman was endorsing the product.  The amp was selling for $7500 and the article stated..... "Esteemed mastering engineer and audiophile worked with Ray on custom designing every aspect of the headphone, PRIMARILY the sound".........
 
Then someone like N_Maher (someone who knows circuitry) was able to audition the SH52 and discovered that upon removing the chasis, it was the EXACT same amp as the B52, but with a different color chasis and new name.  And then the 5 poor souls who spent the extra 2 grand in order to hear their beloved engineer's sound design are crap out of luck.  

You don't see anything wrong with this?

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

"Assuming" and, "almost certainly" is not exactly empirical proof maverikronin and not demonstrable. You have to really want to believe using that criteria to claim a moral high ground.

It is demonstrable assuming you base your morality on what I do.  If you don't then its not.  Its quite simple.

 

[autonomous]

Your numbers seem a little skewed to me David, but if the esteemed mastering engineer had some input in the design of the product and his input had an added value to it, then no I don't see anything wrong with it. Whether or not the target market would support this added value is another story altogether.
 
[size=13.0pt]As audiophiles, we are offered snake oil by vendors as a regular practice. It may not be the most ethical thing to do but caveat emptor. A smart consumer has to recognize this. Every year new products in this hobby and every other are introduced with the latest innovation or design breakthrough. Sometimes valid performance increase is attained but too often snake oil. [/size]
 
[size=13.0pt]I have not personally tried the Q-701's and I really don't care how they sound, I will not be purchasing them, my K-702's were the right purchase for me.  AKG or Harmon Kardon selling a good product at retail is not moral heresy, some people feel better paying retail. I am not one of those people however.[/size]

 

[maverickronin]

Also I'm not sure you understand what I mean by almost surely.  My usage isn't exactly correct but its within the spirit.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Your numbers seem a little skewed to me David, but if the esteemed mastering engineer had some input in the design of the product and his input had an added value to it, then no I don't see anything wrong with it. Whether or not the target market would support this added value is another story altogether.
 
[size=13.0pt]As audiophiles, we are offered snake oil by vendors as a regular practice. It may not be the most ethical thing to do but caveat emptor. A smart consumer has to recognize this. Every year new products in this hobby and every other are introduced with the latest innovation or design breakthrough. Sometimes valid performance increase is attained but too often snake oil. [/size]
 
[size=13.0pt]I have not personally tried the Q-701's and I really don't care how they sound, I will not be purchasing them, my K-702's were the right purchase for me.  AKG or Harmon Kardon selling a good product at retail is not moral heresy, some people feel better paying retail. I am not one of those people however.[/size]

If by numbers you mean price, and by skewed you mean too low, I agree, I was being conservative.  But the Q701 is going for nearly double what the K701 was 3 months ago.  3 Months ago I was able to find vendors who sold the K701 factory sealed for $230.  The lowest I can find the Q701 is $399.
 
In contrast, the B52 is $5,350, therefore a pricetag of about $9,200 would be fairly equivalent for the SH52.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

some people feel better paying retail. I am not one of those people however.

Some people don't necessarily feel better, they just don't know because they don't realize AKG is being deceitful.  No one would feel better paying almost double for a Q701 if they knew the K701 was the same headphone, unless they really really REALLY loved green or they were Quincy Jones's grandmother.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I hear the green dye used in the Q-701 is the same kind used in the green markers you're supposed to color the sides of CDs with.

That would justify the additional cost and also explain why they sound better.

 

[rhythmdevils]

.

 

[Blisse]

Is it bad I like the colour scheme of the Q701 white better than the K701 white? If I do ever get the 701s, it'd probably be the Q701 white. I love fluorescent green as well, but there's excessive. That's only if the price ever drops on these. Else I might settle for the lesser K701. 
 
I'm under no illusions about the price and sound quality. I just like the look better. I still laugh when I see the Apple store says they sound great with the iPod, or they have deep bass. 

I feel it's more akin to shirts. Sure there are cheaper unbranded clothes equal in material, design and fit. But there are also a tad more expensive clothes with a special logo or design. Are they the same shirt? Yes, and they do the exact same job. It's just that one is branded, while the other is relatively unknown.

Not the greatest example, but it'll do for now.

 

[maverickronin]

That's just fine because you know exactly what you're getting into.  Everyone's got different tastes and there's no reason you can't enjoy a product even it is marketed in a reprehensible manner.  If you like it, go for it.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Is it bad I like the colour scheme of the Q701 white better than the K701 white? If I do ever get the 701s, it'd probably be the Q701 white. I love fluorescent green as well, but there's excessive. That's only if the price ever drops on these. Else I might settle for the lesser K701. 
 
I'm under no illusions about the price and sound quality. I just like the look better. I still laugh when I see the Apple store says they sound great with the iPod, or they have deep bass. 

I feel it's more akin to shirts. Sure there are cheaper unbranded clothes equal in material, design and fit. But there are also a tad more expensive clothes with a special logo or design. Are they the same shirt? Yes, and they do the exact same job. It's just that one is branded, while the other is relatively unknown.

Not the greatest example, but it'll do for now.

Just the fact that you're entirely aware that the Q701 and K701 are the same headphone and choose to buy the Q version is entirely opposite of my complaints.  Of course it's OK for you spring for a green version! Why wouldn't it be.  But what about the consumer standing on line next to you who doesn't even like green more than white and is paying 200 dollars more for Quincy Jones' sonic expertise.
 
A much more ethical way AKG could have approached the endorsement would have been......to release the Q701, made full admission that the Q701 was the K701, not insinuated that the Q701 was Quincy Jones creating a sonic experience.  Made the Q701 50 to 100 dollars more than the K701, and said....."consumers, buy our limited edition Q701 as a tribute to the industry's greatest producer"................any consumer wanting to honor the producer would have done so, and anyone not wanting to spend the 100 bucks would have said "hmmm Quincy Jones uses the K701.....he certainly knows a lot, let me go check out a K701" and either way its a win win for AKG....instead they charge 200 bucks more and claim the producer had a hand in the sound design.......bad bad bad
 

 

[Elanzer]

This fiasco has more or less killed AKG's standing in my mind as a company. I wouldn't mind if they were the same price or slightly higher and marketed as a special edition, but the marketing lies really show the company is taking a turn for the worse. If they keep going in this direction, they're just going to become another joke like Monster, Bose and Skullcandy.