Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
I've pondered this question for a long time... Not so much why people don't buy $200 headphones but why they don't even try to find $20 headphones when they are willing to buy $400 mp3 players.
What I've come down to is that most people simply don't care. I firmly believe that the majority of music-lovers are rather indifferent about audio quality and, so long as they can percieve a general melody or lyrics or beat could care less about their audio experience. Indeed, I have grave doubts as to whether or not the average music listener really derives any asthetic pleasure from most of the things we look for in music.
My guess is this is the result of education... that they are brought up to view the reproduction of music in a fairly non-critical way. These people can, sometimes at least, be converted. Example: A few years ago my girlfriend was happy listening to a Yamaha computer-speaker rig... after a bit of work, she has become an active participant in my audiophilic pursuits... this has gone so far that my current main system is really OUR system. (Though, I should note, I've only convinced her to listen to better speakers, she still resists the lure of headphones... go figure!)
I think, though, that times are changing a bit. The new high-end (iPod) phenomena has brought significantly more attention to the portable market. I've noticed that non-stock cans are becoming more and more fashionable in the crowds of Chicago... Unfortunately, I think it may be more of a style thing... hence explaining the wide-spread of those hiddeously overpriced, but cool looking B&O headphones. Bose Quiet Comforts are riding on a similar pathetic wave. Yet, I have been seeing a lot of low-end Sennheisers around lately. (The MX500s seem to be considered a good replacement for the iPod stock phones.)
|
blip, I think you make alot of valid points here, and I agree with much of what you say.
I have also wondered about the paradox of people spending hundreds on mp3 players, and then not really hearing the music with an even decent pair of cans.
My recent thought about this is that the premium headphone/IEM companies are just not able to market their products, and thus only a small percentage of headphone users actually own them. This is not uique to cans, and happens with other things in life. Take wristwatches. You can buy a a casio or a timex or a swatch for under $50. The watch will keep excellent time, and even be "stylish". There are no parts to service, except the battery, which you could either pay a few bucks to change every few years, or just buy another watch. But then there are people who will pay 10, 20, or 100 times more than that to buy a high end mechanical watch, that will need more care and maintenance than a $50 watch (but could last for years as it is likely well-made). These companies don't tend to advertise much -- watch enthusiasts know the companies and search out their products. But most people view a watch as a way to keep reasonably accurate time, and not necessarily a well-crafted mechanical device. And since there are is no mass advertising to the contrary, most people will not be swayed into spending more than they feel they have to. Of course, there are exceptions, like Omega and Rolex, which have snob appeal, much like Bose or B & O do. In fact, Bose does mass advertise their cans, and hence the person who can drop several hundred on their visit to an Apple store, will throw a pair of Bose in their shopping cart. After all, it is the "high-end" can featured in the store.
What I am saying is that: 1) most people are unaware that high quality cans are available (they accept what is provided with the mp3 player as suffcient); and 2) advertsing higher-end headphones can influence people into buying them, as demonstrated by Bose.
