[kool bubba ice]

The R10 was 4,000 at retail. And Sony LOST money on every pair sold.. So, the price was fair. If you think Sony some how profited off the R10, you are wrong.

 

[boomana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif the R10 is utterly bright and bass shy...but the SS is apparently even better than on the cd3k and the big wood enclosures kill most inner up resonances...plus they're rare and elite stuff!

huh? Mine don't sound that way at all. I do have a bass-heavy R10, but I've heard the bass-light pair as well. Other than an obvious, but not completely dramatic difference in the bass, and subtle differences in the midrange, they both sound similar. "Bright" is not a word I'd even associate with them.


I fell in love with the R10s before I knew they were rare and/or expensive headphones. In fact, I didn't know there was such a thing as rare or expensive headphones outside of the $200-$500 range. Someone put them on my head at my first (or was it my second?) meet, and let me keep them in my hotel room overnight. I was only using an ipod and an SR-71 amp at the time, and I still knew they were amazing.

Oh, and speaking of meets, R10s are not great meet headphones. They, like the O2MK1s, K1000s, HP2s, etc. are most amazing in the nuances they reveal that can't be picked up on in a few minutes of listening in a crowded room. Sure, you might recognize that they're good headphones, but only once you have some quiet, alone time with them do you really begin get why people value them as they do.

If some people are invested in how much something costs, thinking they have to rate them with a cost per performance ratio, or embark upon a cost comparison with other headphones, so be it. That's one way of looking at things, and if that makes someone feel good to evaluate things that way, that's fine. I, for one, could care less. I didn't pay current market prices for mine, but that's not the point. Outside of family, friends, work, and creativity, there are very few things in life that bring real joy. If I experience that every time I put them on my head, who is anyone else to put a price on that? Who is anyone else to tell me what's valuable, or what a law of diminishing returns should mean to me?

 

[Czilla9000]

Okay, I agree with both sides of this argument. I also think there is miscommunication going on here.

obobskivich is probably right that the R10's, at say $8000(?), probably don't sound 800% better than the numerous wonderful phones that sell for under $1000. I think that's his point.

However, it is perfectly justified for someone to pay $8000 if they choose to. Such a buyer probably isn't as concerned with value (bang per buck) as raw performance (pure bang).

There is another possible reason someone might pay $8000 - Speculative Resale Value.

A buyer might say "Hmmm....I could buy a R10 for $8000, listen to it, and then sell it for $10,000...then my real cost is -$2000...or a could buy a Grado RS1 for $700, listen to it, and then sell it for $500, for a real cost of $200."

Basically, the actual cost of ownership may be negative for the R10...you could possibly profit from listening to the R10 and then selling them. If that respect, the R10 is cheaper than the Koss PortaPros.

I've been meaning to write a separate thread on headphones and speculative resale value.

 

[robm321]

The R10s are not any better than the O2s, PS-1, HP-2, HE-90, Qualia, etc.

They have their own flavor and have certain things they do that are unmatched, but so do all of the top phones. Those that like the sound and have the money will get them (assuming they can track down a pair), but don't assume the price puts them above some less expensive phones, or that some (myself included) wouldn't prefer a much less expensive headphone.

 

[boomana]

I didn't buy them for their resale value. I bought them because I really enjoy them. Not everyone looks at things in terms of money alone, nor do I think it's a proper way to assign value if using that as the only measure.

 

[Skin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif The R10 was 4,000 at retail. And Sony LOST money on every pair sold.. So, the price was fair. If you think Sony some how profited off the R10, you are wrong.

just curious, what is your source for this tidbit of information? because i dont believe that for one second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif same reason K1000's are approaching $1500, and AT W5000's are only ~$700 (look up the list MSRPs for both of these, respectively )

Sorry Obo but i think you fail in your point here, the K1000, when launched back in the late 80s, was around $1200 if i remember correctly. Today you can still purchase a used one for around 1k. Anyone who pays hundreds more than this, let alone $500 more, is overpaying compared to the current market value.

The K1000 was also sold with demand over a period of ~10 years before it was finally discontinured where as the market was absolutely flooded W5000s since its release back in early 2006. Thats what damaged the MSRP.

 

[dan1son]

Speaking of cars, why does a 1967 Mustang GT500 cost so much? You can buy a brand new Corvette for 1/4th the price which is faster, handles better, is more reliable, accelerates harder, drives easier, etc. etc.

Trying to warrant the price vs what you get out of it doesn't make sense. If you have the money to pony up (pun intended) and want a pair, buy them... if not don't try to convince yourself others are making bad decisions. I'd never pay $200k for a 42 year old car, but many people would and their reasons are, just that, their reasons.

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czilla9000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Basically, the actual cost of ownership may be negative for the R10...you could possibly profit from listening to the R10 and then selling them. If that respect, the R10 is cheaper than the Koss PortaPros. ....I've been meaning to write a separate thread on headphones and speculative resale value.

Profit was not the intent, but in that respect the R10 is the cheapest headphone I've ever owned. I went into the transaction knowing that if I needed to sell the headphone I wouldn't have a problem breaking even. As prices skyrocketed I had to constantly analyze whether or not the headphone was worth keeping.

That thread topic would be an interesting discussion.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Was on head fi a while back..Reliable poster..But forgot the name.

 

[progo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't buy them for their resale value. I bought them because I really enjoy them. Not everyone looks at things in terms of money alone, nor do I think it's a proper way to assign value if using that as the only measure.

I use the resale value as an argument when buying expensive gear. People will buy it.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1son /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speaking of cars, why does a 1967 Mustang GT500 cost so much? You can buy a brand new Corvette for 1/4th the price which is faster, handles better, is more reliable, accelerates harder, drives easier, etc. etc. Trying to warrant the price vs what you get out of it doesn't make sense. If you have the money to pony up (pun intended) and want a pair, buy them... if not don't try to convince yourself others are making bad decisions. I'd never pay $200k for a 42 year old car, but many people would and their reasons are, just that, their reasons.

But thats a car. A classic!! Not a headphone. This is how people think. The majority feel 100 for headphones is too much, and not worth it, unless it's BOSE.. There is still a lot of misconceptions about headphones.

 

[Skin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Was on head fi a while back..Reliable poster..But forgot the name.

All the same thats called hearsay and i wouldnt believe that for a second.

 

[dan1son]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif But thats a car. A classic!! Not a headphone. This is how people think. The majority feel 100 for headphones is too much, and not worth it, unless it's BOSE.. There is still a lot of misconceptions about headphones.

Sure, but we're not most people. This list goes on and on. People spend thousands on watches when you can get a perfectly good Casio for $20 which tells better time. Spend $1000 on a bag that holds less stuff than the $20 job at walmart.

It should be easy enough to convince people why headphones can be so expensive. Everybody has something they've spent more on than needed for relatively arbitrary reasons. I've always just asked about whatever they're into and why they paid so much and they immediately go, "Oh..."

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry Obo but i think you fail in your point here, the K1000, when launched back in the late 80s, was around $1200 if i remember correctly. Today you can still purchase a used one for around 1k. Anyone who pays hundreds more than this, let alone $500 more, is overpaying compared to the current market value. The K1000 was also sold with demand over a period of ~10 years before it was finally discontinued where as the market was absolutely flooded W5000s since its release back in early 2006. Thats what damaged the MSRP.

Agreed - I bought my K-1000s brand new at a local hi fi shop just as stock ran out everywhere. Only a few years ago, so there are still a lot of K-1000s around. I bought them for $850. The price is continuing to go up, but they are still very available while the R10s are rare and because the price Sony slapped on it was $4K since there was a pretty limited run compared to the K-1000s which were not only sold as headphones but also to Disney. So, if you plan to sell a small amount of something, you price it very high. If you sell a lot of them you lower the price. Simple economics. It doesn't necessarily mean the R10s were THAT much more to make... look at the PS-1000s - are they really THAT much more to make than the GS-1000s to almost cost twice as much? No, it's a price/demand decision that Grado made to get a certain profit.

Price is all about the market. If there were only 100 K-1000s made and they were originally sold at $5K. People would think they were the most amazing headphones ever. Perception in the market place is everything.

I remember when I first heard the HE-90 on probably the best set up (Neils) around. My first thought was, they sound like really good headphones. I honestly expected to be floored, but I wasn't - I realized then that price definitely does not dictate anything other than how rare or unique something is. Don't get me wrong I put the HE-90 on it's own plain as the best technical headphone ever made - IMHO anyway.

That's what Tyll was trying to say when the HD800 came out. That they want to keep the "perceived value" high. If they would have sold the HD800 for $600, people would have automatically assumed that they weren't up with the best headphones. It's just the way these things work.

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skin /img/forum/go_quote.gif All the same thats called hearsay and i wouldnt believe that for a second.

I recall a discussion based around this concept. The premise was that statement projects like the R10 and Senn Orpheus are not profit centers considering the time and energy that goes into making a few units. The R&D costs for Sony to make ~1,200 R10s and for Sennheiser to make ~300 Orpheus (is plural Orphei?

) *might* be covered by revenue but it probably wouldn't cover the opportunity cost to develop a more marketable product. The argument is that these types of products are marketing opportunities to showcase the company's design ability and sell more of the mainstream products.

I don't recall if there were any specific stats but the conversation is at least out there somewhere.