Quote:
Exactly, because they know people like us will buy them. But it's interesting how you said, "last few percent". I think that's exactly what it is.
Very true. I think that describes my experience in the world of amps quite well. We just hope the buyer knows exactly what he's getting for the extra money spent...
Honestly, I think we all do. The question is, whether or not we can really accept that fact. It must be hard to hit the ceiling, yet still want to go higher without selling your soul to get there; when in fact "higher" isn't really a significant advancement in the first place. I'm sure that can be applied to specific tiers of headphones besides the flagship end once you hit that "sweet spot" of value. Personally, I find it hard after all the headphones I've tried, and all my experience, to settle on something less than the greatest my budget will allow. But deep down I know that won't do me much good, yet I fail to convince myself of the fact that I'm paying for those few percentages. I'm sure users' experiences will vary, but I find this can be the case for a lot of us, including myself.
You mean those lowly mid-fidelity HD650/K702 ranges of headphones or those truly low-fidelity low resolution HD598's and AD900's?
Seriously though, very well said. I think Chris's experience should be a lesson to a lot of newcomers to the boards as to just how far off the deep-end may be warranted. For the few percent of difference you're buying at those $1k price points, if you weren't happy with the headphones at the $500 price point, you probably still won't be happy with the $1k, $1.5k, $2k price points either....If you know what you're getting, as you say, then great. But if you're so picky you're impossible to please at $500, you're not going to have much better luck elsewhere, there's only so far audio reproduction, especially at close-range can go. The old flagships were already near the top of what can be done with audio reproduction. K702 is still a staple of studio production, HD600 and 650 are still go-to staples in classical engineering. They were a testament to modern engineering. They were praised here for a decade almost. Just how far did everyone think the same recording could be moved beyond that level? Sure tweaks here, tweaks there. We all anticipated new releases...HD655, HD660, K703 that sort of thing. New models to replace the elder models at the same price with newer tech. Instead they dump the $1500 improved model on us. And the monstrosity that is the $1000 HD700. HD800 introduces great tech, nice advancement, I can understand a crazy premium on that until the R&D is paid and until mass production can move it into the mainstream. The fact that HD700 is.....what it is, and HD800's new tech remains isolated to stratospheric prices is demeaning. The problem, I fear, is that the mfrs know they've pushed the limits of the tech, there's nowhere else for them to go, so they can't afford to lower their prices as the tech ages.
Few things irritate me on the boards more than the "mid-fi" moniker. I can live with all the praise of "cryo-treated cables sound so much better"....if it's what people think they hear, great. I'm not anti-cable at all, I think there is some merit to it, but once they get into the crazy cryo type claims or those rediculous "Less Loss" cables I see advertised on the side-bar (I thought isolating the ground was a UL no-no?? I'd love to know how they got away with that....) it gets more absurd. But still, I can tolerate that. But "mid-fi" just irritates me. The insinuation that production level speakers that represented the top of the line for so long, and only sits SLIGHTLY below the flagships costing several times their value is somehow no longer represents a high level of fidelity is bewildering. No one will deny that HD800 (it's easiest to pick on Sennheiser with their nutty pricing) is superior to HD600 and HD650 technically. But selling that bump in performance for 3x the price of the 10 year old launch price of the previous high-end makes it such a negative value proposition it's laughable. Would I love to have one in my collection? Sure. Would I pay $1500 for it? Not a chance. It's such false value. The predictable world would have placed HD650 as the soon-to-be retired $300 or $350 headphone, HD700 as the replacement for HD650 at the $500 mark, and maybe, as sheer luxury, HD800 as the $1k flagship for those willing to pay for the last bit. What has happened to the pricing structure in the headphone world is amazing. But I can accept manufacturers doing it so long as folks are paying it. Ok, fine. But everyone running around screaming "headphone x is mid-fi, it doesn't have the extra tiny detail of hearing the saliva in the throat of the singer that $2k headphone y has" fuels the fire and harms any real discussion of headphones. "mid-fi" does exist, but it exists at a much lower price point for much inferior models to former flagships. Those that isolate "mid-fi" in that way seem to imply that top-of-the-line is hi-fi, most everything else is mid-fi, and SkullCandy is "low-fi". It makes it very difficult to maintain useful discussion of the real value of product lines. Like you said, you hope the buyer knows what they're getting for all that extra money in terms of tiny increases in performance. The relegation to mid-fi of some truly amazing headphones I fear leads people to feel they need to spend $1k+ to experience what hi-fidelity really is, instead of understanding $1k+ buys them a little bit more prescision over existing hi-fi at manageable prices.
It's a false value that sponsors no doubt love. But it's kind of a sad turn of events compared to what these forums looked like just a few years ago when people were doing the same thing with their $10k source chains to feed the 'unbeatable' HD650. Back then, $500 was really expensive, but worth it for the price, but there was a lot you could do with some of the monitor-class headphones under $150. Now $1k is the new $500, and $500 is considered cheap? Someone missed the economic briefing... For the long-time audiophiles, most of us know exactly what we're looking at so we can talk around it and still have meaningful conversation. But for a lot of newcomers, that sort of thing gives them a very false sense of value and sense of what they're hearing. Worse is the newcomers with way more money than experience who insist on buying the $1k+ price point, insisting it's the true meaning of hi-fi, and have no real understanding of what they really have and how it relates to what else is available.
It's not so much the money as the value that's at issue. A common reaction to my statements would be that "well if you can't afford the top of the line....". The money I've spent on my "mid-fi" headphone collection isn't mild. I could have easily bought LCD-2, HE6, T1, even HD800, LCD-3, maybe even a Stax rig if you throw the IEMs and amps into the mix. But for me, a collection of a host of different sound signatures and feels (and failover by duplicates), all at 90-95% of the performance of the top has far more value, fun, and generally sonic pleasure than the same money spent on a single pair of cans. One top-tier headphone may please me for most things. But 5 headphones each used for the recordings they enhance the most, to me, is a better matching for all recordings all the way around. I wouldn't consider trading the collection for a one-size-fits-all flagship for a moment. I think I would come away with less value than I had. I can match my mood and the recording. If I want analytical, wide sound K702 comes out. If I want relaxing, HD650 comes out. If I want detailed or bassy, D5k comes out, if I want my dark all-rounder, HE-400 comes out. One $2k headphone couldn't do that. And is only somewhat better in detail and performance. Which is a better value? I'd still like to have an LCD2 in the collection, flaws aside, I think it represents the high-end of "almost-sane" and marks the beginning of "almost pointless diminishing returns." But would I get much more out of it than what I have? Probably not. I'd love to hear the vast soundstage of HD800. But I'm not sure I'd pay a dime more than $800 for the experience. And even that is pushing it. They are so obviously trying to create a new market with a new sense of value, and unfortunately, a lot of people that should know better seem to be biting.
There's also the bigger question. How much detail is too much? All this super-resolution may be good for the studio, but for listening, isn't the point to immitate live music? When was the last time you heard the saliva in the throat or the bow striking the violin in a live performance unless you were on stage? It's kind of fun to hear, but it also gets tiring fast. Leading, also, to situations like Chris's "top of the line isn't good enough" dilemma. It doesn't really sound like musicians playing. It sounds like something much more electronic and surreal. That may not apply to LCD2 as much as other flagships, though.
Still, we don't know what Chris is expecting from his headphones that he isn't getting!
