The State of the Flagships

[bfreedma]

There are inexpensive apps for that, so it isn't a huge expense.

And the learning curve for those products and the time investment in setting up, learning how to use, then EQing? Not saying the expense is huge, but hard to see it being not putting his cost over $50. or $200.

BTW, which $50 vintage headphone is being discussed here as a flagship alternative? I may have missed it but don't recall seeing any specifics.

 

[vid]

 
How much extra work are we talking about and how much time is involved?  Time/work, even our own, isn't free.

 
Since you're an enthusiast member on head-fi and average about 200 posts per year, chances are this is a hobby for you, regardless. In this way, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider charging people for access to your posts, and you likely haven't paid others for your consumption of the results of their efforts (posts, reviews, photons, etc.). If you've not done this - especially the second bit - I think it's safe to say the suggestion of adding up the cost of 'working on the headphones' is an excuse more than a real concern. On the other hand, if you do consider it an issue, you might also suggest a price of admission on my posts like the one you quoted - after all, any input I give is backed by having been at it for ten years, so I should be eligible for decent pay.

 

[bfreedma]

 
How much extra work are we talking about and how much time is involved?  Time/work, even our own, isn't free.

 
Since you're an enthusiast member on head-fi and average about 200 posts per year, chances are this is a hobby for you, regardless. In this way, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider charging people for access to your posts, and you likely haven't paid others for your consumption of the results of their efforts (posts, reviews, photons, etc.). If you've not done this - especially the second bit - I think it's safe to say the suggestion of adding up the cost of 'working on the headphones' is an excuse more than a real concern. On the other hand, if you do consider it an issue, you might also suggest a price of admission on my posts like the one you quoted - after all, any input I give is backed by having been at it for ten years, so I should be eligible for decent pay.

I have no idea what you're getting at and find your analogy for charging for posts absurd. All of our time has value; where you made the jump to charging others for it in the context of this discussion I can't follow.

 

[vid]

The idea is that you want to be paid for work but not for a hobby. You can either regard time spent on headphones as a hobby or as work - if you regard it as the latter then you must regard my contributions and those of others on the topic to be valued in money, meaning you must be willing to pay for consuming them. My feeling is that this is a hobby for you, ie. to put a price on time spent doing it would be the absurd thing.

 

[bfreedma]

The idea is that you want to be paid for work but not for a hobby. You can either regard time spent on headphones as a hobby or as work - if you regard it as the latter then you must regard my contributions and those of others on the topic to be valued in money, meaning you must be willing to pay for consuming them. My feeling is that this is a hobby for you, ie. to put a price on time spent doing it would be the absurd thing.

You're missing the point. I could spend many hours leaning how to EQ, buy the tools to do it, buy the measuring equipment necessary to validate the results (this is a discussion around achieving flat response, if it's to achieve personal preference, skip the measurements) to turn our unnamed $50 headphone into a flagship.

Or I could buy a flagship and spend that time enjoying music, which is the hobby I'm referencing.

Either way, I'm still lost on your analogy regarding what we choose to share on a free public site knowing that there is no compensation for those posts. It seems pretty obvious that we've all tacitly agreed to share information here with no expectation of financial compensation. It could be considered a form of information bartering I suppose...

 

[bigshot]

And the learning curve for those products and the time investment in setting up, learning how to use, then EQing?

 
People make EQing out to be WAY more complicated than it actually is. All it requires is an understanding of which frequencies are which and a little analytical listening. If people expended 1/10th of the energy they spend straining to hear the unhearable frequencies and inaudible distortion in their equipment, they would be able to learn to EQ and have plenty of time to spare to just sit and listen to wonderful sounding music.
 
Vid's point is that you spend time on your stereo equipment because you enjoy it. It isn't a chore or an obligation. You *want* to do it. Why not spend that time on something that actually makes your system sound better instead of just hoping more and more money solves the problems in your system?
 
Unless it's just a status symbol thing, in which case, spending a lot of money on bling is the only way you are going to be happy with your sound system, and whether it sounds good or not is irrelevant.

 

[bfreedma]

And the learning curve for those products and the time investment in setting up, learning how to use, then EQing?

 
People make EQing out to be WAY more complicated than it actually is. All it requires is an understanding of which frequencies are which and a little analytical listening. If people expended 1/10th of the energy they spend straining to hear the unhearable frequencies and distortion in their equipment, they would be able to learn to EQ and have plenty of time to spare to just sit and listen to wonderful sounding music.

Agreed, though I think people new to EQ and general audio theory will need significantly more time than you need given your long term experience with the tools and assessing results.

No argument that it's a far better investment in time than chasing the inaudible.

Not sure why you bring up "throwing money at it" or "status symbols". I haven't suggested either as a substitute for knowing how to utilize gear properly.

 

[bfreedma]

Double Post

 

[bigshot]

Most of the people who are new to audio science come in here and spend lots and lots of time arguing and trying to avoid learning!

 

[bfreedma]

Most of the people who are new to audio science come in here and spend lots and lots of time arguing and trying to avoid learning!

Agreed again. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a significant learning curve for those new to Audio Science who do want to learn. What one of us might do in an hour now would have taken us a lot longer when we first started.

 

[vid]

You're missing the point. I could spend many hours leaning how to EQ, buy the tools to do it, buy the measuring equipment necessary to validate the results (this is a discussion around achieving flat response, if it's to achieve personal preference, skip the measurements) to turn our unnamed $50 headphone into a flagship.

Or I could buy a flagship and spend that time enjoying music, which is the hobby I'm referencing.

Either way, I'm still lost on your analogy regarding what we choose to share on a free public site knowing that there is no compensation for those posts. It seems pretty obvious that we've all tacitly agreed to share information here with no expectation of financial compensation. It could be considered a form of information bartering I suppose...

 
You're saying you want to pay for convenience. That's ok - already covered in earlier posts. Has nothing to do with sound quality, though.
 
As for the last point, I'm not sure that I've signed an agreement that I don't want compensation for the work I've put in. The question has more to do with whether you value that work or not - so from a moral point it's interesting what you've said, given that it also seems you're willing to pay for convenience only when you have to. Nothing against you, just an observation in general.

 

[bfreedma]

You're missing the point. I could spend many hours leaning how to EQ, buy the tools to do it, buy the measuring equipment necessary to validate the results (this is a discussion around achieving flat response, if it's to achieve personal preference, skip the measurements) to turn our unnamed $50 headphone into a flagship.

Or I could buy a flagship and spend that time enjoying music, which is the hobby I'm referencing.

Either way, I'm still lost on your analogy regarding what we choose to share on a free public site knowing that there is no compensation for those posts. It seems pretty obvious that we've all tacitly agreed to share information here with no expectation of financial compensation. It could be considered a form of information bartering I suppose...

 
You're saying you want to pay for convenience. That's ok - already covered in earlier posts. Has nothing to do with sound quality, though.
 
As for the last point, I'm not sure that I've signed an agreement that I don't want compensation for the work I've put in. The question has more to do with whether you value that work or not - so from a moral point it's interesting what you've said, given that it also seems you're willing to pay for convenience only when you have to. Nothing against you, just an observation in general.

How does my presenting an example indicate what I have or haven't done? And, yes, the terms you agreed to when you joined head-FI are clear as to the free nature of the posts on this site. Information posted on this site is clearly in the public domain.

Really, your entire strawman seems more intent on avoiding the topic than making a rational point. It's an absurdist take on a valid discussion as a way of avoiding the actual point being made. I'll leave it with you going forward.

 

[vid]

Interesting terms, to say the least - can't say I'd interpret the tos in quite that way. But this makes my point - you got the posts for free, so you don't find the need to compensate. It's in some contrast to finding that the cost of one's time modding headphones drives up the price.
 
As I say, you seem happy to pay for convenience, which I've already stated is beside the point. The point being that price is a poor indication of sound quality - in part because price is inflated for those who pay extra for convenience.

 

[money4me247]

EQ isn't that hard. but I would disagree with the pricing. I don't think you can really find a $50 pair of headphones that will scale up to flagship levels unless extensively modded (aka like the Mr. Speaker's Modded T50rp into the Alpha Prime, which ends up being $1000 retail), and the T50RP's are actually like $100-$150 retail.
 
I guess the $50 example is sort of an exaggeration (IMO), but the underlying point still makes sense. I think many of the excellent $150-$250 open headphone can easily compete against flagships without EQ and can EQ further to fit your tastes. Seen the HD600/HD650 fall down to the low $200 and the K7xx is only $200 retail. Really not very many serious open options at the $50 price point thou. Even the Sony MDR-V6 and ATH-M50 is $99 at least and they are definitely a class below solid open mid-fi options (esp in the sound stage department).

 

[jcx]

  FYI:
http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf
http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart2.pdf
 
Indeed, we can certainly save some money.