[jesse_w]

It's not about what the material should be, or the cost.

The issue is that it's pretending to be metal! If it has to be plastic fine, but painting it with faux-metal makes it look cheap regardless of the actual reason. In my mind it's an admission they could have used metal but were too cheap. I didn't even realize the HD800 wasn't metal.

It's also a hideous pair of headphones.

Which has nothing to do with the sound, but we're talking about design. Why spend 1400$ and not want it to be beautiful? It's a luxury item. 'Good enough' sound happens waaaay before 1400$. I spend 1400$ on something I want it to be beautiful and functional. If I want just functional I'll spend 200$ thanks.

At the very least at 1400$ it shouldn't have pretensions of something it's not.

But that's just me.

PS: davidhunternyc, I enjoyed your original post. Nice to see something thoughtful here once in a while!

 

[UezeU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, don't you love how the people that often can't afford a product like to bash it? But that's okay... let them live in their ignorance while we enjoy one of the world's best headphones. The only other headphone I'd really like to have to complement the HD800 is the R10.

Apparently I am stupid and poor. You are so cool and rich. Will you please tell me more about yourself so that I may bask in the glory and awesomeness that is you? One day, probably in the distant future, I hope my entire life could command the same amount of respect and envy as one of your bowel movements.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesse_w /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not about what the material should be, or the cost. The issue is that it's pretending to be metal! If it has to be plastic fine, but painting it with faux-metal makes it look cheap regardless of the actual reason. In my mind it's an admission they could have used metal but were too cheap. I didn't even realize the HD800 wasn't metal. It's also a hideous pair of headphones. Which has nothing to do with the sound, but we're talking about design. Why spend 1400$ and not want it to be beautiful? It's a luxury item. 'Good enough' sound happens waaaay before 1400$. I spend 1400$ on something I want it to be beautiful and functional. If I want just functional I'll spend 200$ thanks. At the very least at 1400$ it shouldn't have pretensions of something it's not. But that's just me. PS: davidhunternyc, I enjoyed your original post. Nice to see something thoughtful here once in a while!

Jesse, a headphone is an inanimate object, incapable of pretending to be anything. And your assertion that "it's an admission they (Sennheiser, I assume) could have used metal but were too cheap" is unsupportable.

I think the HD-800 is attractive enough and rugged enough. I don't think it's as attractive as the Sony R-10 and some others, but that is in the eye of the beholder. Many think the Sony Qualia is wonderful looking, I think it's a bit much. But whatever...

Any headphone that works is functional. So "beautiful and functional" doesn't cut it, at least for me. I would prefer beautiful and outstanding sonically. To me, this defines the afformentioned R-10, but the last two pairs I've seen for sale were $5500 and $6200, respectively. So my decision was to sacrifice some beauty (and, to be frank, a bit of sound quality) and buy the $1400 HD-800.

If I only wanted good enough (whatever that is) yes, I could have bought a cheaper phone. But I wanted better than "good enough" sonically, so I ordered the Senns with every intention of returning them for refund if their sound quality was not up to my expectations. So far, I really enjoy the sound and I don't know of a cheaper headphone whose sound would please me as much overall. Of course, it's true I have not heard every headphone...

Your assertion that "at 1400$ it shouldn't have pretensions of something it's not" I can only assume was a projection of some sort.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions on this matter. The reason I took the time to explain my thought process is so that you would understand that not every customer for the HD-800 bought it on hype or for ego reinforcement, etc. For many of us, I suspect, it was a reasoned purchase not casually made. And, FWIW, I actually AM a Mensa member...

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UezeU /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't believe people are actually defending Sennheiser's use of plastic in a $1400 headphone. As for cost, the equivalent weight of the headphone in pure silver would be less than $100. If they were actually concerned with resonance they would have used a Sonex type pattern. A smart person would use a Ti-Ni wire frame (or another memory alloy) with a non-resonant surface shape. Plastic has a much larger surface area for an equivalent strength and would therefore reflect more sound. Basically, they made a product as cheap as possible and sold it for as much as they could. The guys that buy it are just on the front of the Laffer curve.

I am definitely willing to hear you out on this one. Would you please elaborate on your comments about a Sonex type pattern and the Ti-Ni wire frame? I concur that it is very frustrating that perhaps one of the best sounding headphones of contemporary times is not built to match it's sound. The new Edition 8 might or might not be up to the sound quality of the HD800, but for roughly the same price, it's build quality is superior.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Wow, I had no idea this thread had degenerated so far. Having owned the HD-800 for about a week, I'm very happy with the materials and build quality. Not quite HP-2 or DT48 solidity, but very good. It sounds amazing, too.

I still think Sennheiser missed the mark on price. $800-$1,000 would be about right. Still, it only ended up being about $200 out of pocket after selling some stuff. I do think it was worth it - I enjoy the HD-800 more than anything I sold.

If you can't - or won't - pay $1,400 for headphones, that's OK. You can get a huge amount of satisfaction from lower priced headphones and speakers. I had chosen to go the speaker route instead of buying these, but really fell for them at CanJam. It took a couple of weeks to think it through, but I decided that I'd get more enjoyment by selling several headphones and buying these instead.

So if the HD-800 is unreasonable to you, that's fine. There are lots of less expensive options you'll love. I got my Quads for $650; there are other great bargains out there, too.

 

[UezeU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am definitely willing to hear you out on this one. Would you please elaborate on your comments about a Sonex type pattern and the Ti-Ni wire frame? I concur that it is very frustrating that perhaps one of the best sounding headphones of contemporary times is not built to match it's sound. The new Edition 8 might or might not be up to the sound quality of the HD800, but for roughly the same price, it's build quality is superior.

Be forewarned, I have no idea what I am talking about.

I suggested Ti-Ni for two reasons. First, it is neat-o and second I do know that the "inner dampening"(amidoinitrite) of a material is related to its elasticity. Ti-Ni is highly elastic, as anyone with a pair of the bendy glasses will tell you. Ideally you would want the material porous. You can make a metal foam with Aluminium, I wonder if you could with Ti-Ni?

Sonex produces a variety sound deadening materials and uses different surface patterns that aid in preventing the reflection of sound. The small size of the pattern on the wire would diminish its effectiveness (its related to the size of the sound wave as compared to the pattern blah blah blah) but it would look cool. The marketing guys would have a field day too.

 

[jesse_w]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jesse, a headphone is an inanimate object, incapable of pretending to be anything. And your assertion that "it's an admission they (Sennheiser, I assume) could have used metal but were too cheap" is unsupportable.

It's a turn of phrase. The idea behind which is that the folks at Sennheiser chose to make the headphone look as if it were made of a material it is not. I think it's poor design, especially on such an expensive product, that's all there is to it.

Unlike some people in this thread, I would consider buying an HD800, and I don't think it foolish to buy one at all. I feel it could have been designed better for the price, but nothing is perfect. I'm sure it sounds beautiful and that IS what's important. But we CAN talk about design, and that's all I'm trying to talk about. We can want it to be even better than it is. We don't have to justify and defend everything about it. How else do things get better?
Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the HD-800 is attractive enough and rugged enough.

I'm sure it's well built. My personal headphone of choice is the HD650 and it's made of plastic, it's not very handsome, and it has a faux-metal finish (although not in silver). It's well built and I'm confident the HD800 will be even more sturdy. I appreciate that you don't mind the looks.
Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any headphone that works is functional. So "beautiful and functional" doesn't cut it, at least for me.

Perhaps I was ambiguous. When I said that about the HD800 I meant beautiful and outstanding sonically. I feel the HD800 could be more beautiful, especially for it's price. Again, that is all I'm saying.
Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I only wanted good enough (whatever that is) yes, I could have bought a cheaper phone. But I wanted better than "good enough" sonically, so I ordered the Senns with every intention of returning them for refund if their sound quality was not up to my expectations.

I am not saying anything about anyone's choice to buy the headphones. I understand the desire for better than "good enough", this is head-fi after all. I didn't mean to be ambiguous about that. I'm only talking about the design, and not trying to warn people off headphones I've never owned or judge people who have bought them.
Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your assertion that "at 1400$ it shouldn't have pretensions of something it's not" I can only assume was a projection of some sort.

I don't know why you feel the need to attack me. If you felt attacked by my judgement of a headphone, it was not my intention I can assure you.

I feel the headphone should not have a fake finish at that price. That is all I am saying. This is not a judgment on your decision to purchase the headphone.
Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are, of course, entitled to your opinions on this matter.

Condescending and ignoring the point I'm trying to make. I am merely discussing the DESIGN and the appearance of the product. Not the sound, which I have not heard. Not the people who have purchased it. I don't doubt that it is a great headphone.
Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason I took the time to explain my thought process is so that you would understand that not every customer for the HD-800 bought it on hype or for ego reinforcement, etc. For many of us, I suspect, it was a reasoned purchase not casually made.

Condescending again. But then again it seems like you feel judged through your headphone. Projection or something.

I never insinuated anyone bought the HD800 for less than well considered reasons. Your headphone is not you. I think your headphone is ugly. So what? I've bought ugly headphones because I liked the sound. I just wish they were prettier. I wish the HD800 was prettier.

 

[robm321]

This thread should fizzle out with arguments. Maybe that's best.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karlosak /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds like taken from a Sony brochure, marketing speech doesn't impress me, sorry

I guess the point was: the Qualias are made of real carbon fiber, leather and magnesium (and you can tell that it's expensive when you hold a pair).

 

[saintalfonzo]

They may possibly be the "best sounding headphones ever" as voted for by a majority of our peers, but the fact that they are made out of plastic seems to be a sore subject for most owners. They might be great, but I'm tired of people arguing the fact that they are made out of the best material for their function. Please admit you're in denial or just plain stupid for believing that using wood or metal would reduce sound quality... PLEASE!!! If you threw a nice looking koa veneer on these things it would not reduce SQ, only improve the looks. Just please admit that Sennheiser cut costs with the plastic, that's all. They might be the best sounding dynamics for most, but they are PLASTIC $1400 headphones.

 

[paulb09]

You people are off your heads. Please don't give me "oh, use titanium, it's so light". Titanium isn't light. It's a light for a metal at the strength it provides, but it's by no means a light material.

As for carbon fibre, I wouldn't want ugly black weaves of fibre all over my headphone, not to mention how artificially glossy carbon fibre finish usually looks. Okay, so you could paint it, but then it's the same damn difference as using plastic.

 

[SleepyOne]

I think carbon fibre looks better than plastic spry silver.

 

[paulb09]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintalfonzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif They may possibly be the "best sounding headphones ever" as voted for by a majority of our peers, but the fact that they are made out of plastic seems to be a sore subject for most owners. They might be great, but I'm tired of people arguing the fact that they are made out of the best material for their function. Please admit you're in denial or just plain stupid for believing that using wood or metal would reduce sound quality... PLEASE!!! If you threw a nice looking koa veneer on these things it would not reduce SQ, only improve the looks. Just please admit that Sennheiser cut costs with the plastic, that's all. They might be the best sounding dynamics for most, but they are PLASTIC $1400 headphones.

Except I fail to see on what basis you can say it isn't the best material used. We can't prove or disprove it as we didn't see the tests they did.

I for one am glad wood wasn't used. Wood looks nice on Grados, but would be ghastly on the shape of the HD800. I don't think metal would make them look any less bulky, and as for people saying "oh, don't try and fake metal look", you show me headphones you think look nice that don't actually have paint on the metal.

 

[SleepyOne]

Grado

 

[paulb09]

I never saw a topic dedicated to how ugly the better portion of other $1000+ headphones are anyway. I'll start collecting pictures.

[edit]Maybe I'm being a bit harsh about the whole thing. But I just don't see why it's that much of a problem to so many people, especially when it doesn't seem to matter to anyone as much with other high prices headphones.