[Lance Campeau]

If you have something to say about my video, you are welcome to post a video response as indicated in the video's annotations.

 

[Xymordos]

What he said is actually quite right. A lot of brands, especially Beats line is a ripoff. Chinese fake Monster products actually use the real factory's drivers. But there are still good headphone brands which are worth the high price. I'm pretty sure its worth it to pay the price and get HD800.

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

If you factor in development costs, warranty, handling, manufacturing and component prices then the markup on most in-ears cannot be that high. Some of the higher end balanced armatures cost $20 a pop even when you buy quantities over 1000 units.

 

[cormann]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that ALL >$10 earphones (earbuds, in his words) are a ripoff. I didn't hear any exceptions (except maybe JVC - he bought 2 of their headphones). It's a pretty bold statement to make without providing any evidence. And no, the fact that dollar stores sell earbuds is not evidence. And no, the fact that Monster happens to sell earphones AND extremely overpriced cables is also not evidence that ALL >$10 earphones are ripoffs.
 
There is an definitive explanation for why we know that Monster is gouging customers for cables, particularly HDMI cables. HDMI cables adhere to definite specifications. Each class of HDMI cable must meet a particular specification. There are not exceptions. An HDMI cable cannot be 1.4 without meeting the specification laid out for HDMI 1.4 cables. These specifications are laid out in writing and adhered to by responsible Manufacturers. A cable that meets the specifications cannot be better than another cable that meets the specification, all other things being equal. So when Monster makes bold claims, which often exceed the specification, and then charges much higher relative prices, you know that you're being gouged. And don't be fooled into believing that exceeding the specification is reason enough for the higher price. Blu-ray players, TVs, and Receivers are designed to function properly at the established specifications. They do not require anything above that - unless, of course, the specification changes or new features arrive that require new specs.
 
This is not the case with earphones. There is no established specification. As a result, there is no concrete foundation for determining price/quality accuracy between earphones. Earphones are designed to reproduce sound; after that, the rest is up in the air. Short of providing a detailed breakdown of the costs associated with producing high-quality earphones versus dollar store earphones, a person cannot definitively argue that audiophiles are gullible fools for buying overpriced products.
 
Here's what he needs to do to convice me:
 
1. Either present us with a detailed breakdown of all costs associated with researching, designing, manufactoring, advertising, selling, etc. for all tiers of earphones; or
 
2. Complete a scientific, peer-reviewed study of earphone audio quality.
 
If the results of either of these studies proves his point, then I won't hesitate to agree; but anything short of that is just an excuse to condescend to an entire community of well-meaning and passionate individuals.
 
And just to make it clear, I am fully aware that I would have to do the same thing in order to definitively prove the opposite: that high-quality earphones are worth the price. I'm pretty sure, though, that the fantastic reviewers at Head-Fi have heard enough earphones to know the truth.
 
Quote:

What he said is actually quite right. A lot of brands, especially Beats line is a ripoff. Chinese fake Monster products actually use the real factory's drivers. But there are still good headphone brands which are worth the high price. I'm pretty sure its worth it to pay the price and get HD800.

 

[QuantumXL]

Well. Frankly, what he says is very opinionated. Do I like it? No. I may be stupid or dumb in some peoples eyes for spending $400 or more on headphones, but if you compare them to other IEMs they are far superior in sound quality. I know my COBY CVE31's sound like crap and my Miles Davis Tribute Turbines sound like heaven compared to them. I would never be caught in a pinto but I wouldn't mind driving a BMW 7 series. Like he said, it is up the the listener to decide. I believe he called it "subjective" in a sense. Supposing we form an opinion to based on what we have formulated in our mind. But to be truthful a lot of listeners buy IEMs in order to replicate the feeling of being in a live concert. Such IEMs (or what he says are earbuds) aren't able to replicate such things. True some of monster products aren't able to do those things, but certain IEMs from other companies (and the same company) are able to achieve that perfect sweet spot of replicating that concert feel. So, it is only semi-subjective depending on the listener. I don't agree with a lot of what he says. But again, his thoughts are also subjective just like my own...
 
I don't like monster at all. $80 dollars for a surge protector or $40 dollars for a cable is pretty ridiculous. No doubt about it. Does one guitar sound better than another? Or does a grand piano sound better than a upright piano? Some people may say yes. Others may say no. It's subjective...
 
Not downing your opinion Lance, just stating my own. You have the rights to your own opinion concerning bad audio products. Hopefully one day you will see the light concerning good audio.

 

[mootookang]

I think simply taking the cost of something and trying to justify the cost is rather silly.

think about the food industry, an omelet would sometimes cost around $8-10 dollars when you go to restaurants, but when you break down the actual cost of the materials used in making an omelet, it would be difficult to justify the massive return. When it comes to soft drinks, it would only cost a fast food join pennies for the syrup and the carbonated water of a single cup of soft drink, but they can easily charge the amount that would give a pretty ridiculous return.

Of course, this is excluding all the the time and management cost that it takes to produce product, which is rather silly.

Overall, it's really all about the economics. As long as there is a demand at a given price, the firms can sell their products however they want with whatever price they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but as long as everyone else is, there's really no possibility that the price would go down any time soon.

 

[cormann]

While that is true, it plays into his notion that we are all gullible fools - since we are willing to pay the high cost for substandard products simply because a sizeable enough group of people are willing to do the same. How many times have you thought that women are fools for buying expensive purses, when all purses do the same thing the same way? You are right though, the market plays a role in price, but companies still cannot survive unless the prices are high enough to sustain their costs.
 
And you really can't take the cost of parts alone into the equation, even for food. The restaurant has to pay rent, utilities, a chef, cooks, etc and still have money left over for the owner to raise a family, pay bills, etc. Taking this into account, how can Future Sonics, Fisher Audio, Shure, or any of these companies maintain profitability by selling inexpensive earphones that compete with stock iPod earbuds (what percentage of the MP3 market does Apple have)? How many dollar store earbuds would they need to design to compete with whoever's already churning out dollar store earbuds. They survive by making quality products with enough demand to justify higher prices. Just like Coach purses are built and designed better, high quality earphones sound better. Woman want good designs, we (as in audiophiles) want great sound.
 
Quote:

I think simply taking the cost of something and trying to justify the cost is rather silly.

think about the food industry, an omelet would sometimes cost around $8-10 dollars when you go to restaurants, but when you break down the actual cost of the materials used in making an omelet, it would be difficult to justify the massive return. When it comes to soft drinks, it would only cost a fast food join pennies for the syrup and the carbonated water of a single cup of soft drink, but they can easily charge the amount that would give a pretty ridiculous return.

Of course, this is excluding all the the time and management cost that it takes to produce product, which is rather silly.

Overall, it's really all about the economics. As long as there is a demand at a given price, the firms can sell their products however they want with whatever price they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but as long as everyone else is, there's really no possibility that the price would go down any time soon.

 

[Camomille]

This guy just states the obvious, I don't see what's outrageous. It's always good to be reminded how swindled we get sometimes. And it's expandable to every markets: clothes, shoes, hi-tech, food, etc etc. The cool brand will always cost you an eye and an arm, it's marketing. And if you're gullible enough to spread all your money on it... then good for you. Just don't come and complain about the capitalist society. You're making it.

 

[thornygravy]

He has some good points, but he forgot to add the cost of designing certain iems.

 

[RecklessFable]

Something is a valuable as people are willing to pay.  It sounds like an oversimplification, but it is true. 
 
How can the cost of production of, say, Westone 4s or Shure 535 be justified in the price?  Development?  Not really.  They were planned from the start to sell at those price points and the development costs were budgeted to fit the projected revenues.
 
It is simply that the market bears the costs for the exclusivity.  And discerning customers with the disposable income are willing to pay the cost.  Market competition and customer reviews counter the illusions that a marketing department might try to create (See Dr. Dre branded phones). 
 
As for the premise that anything over the lowest cost phones are pointless since they can't possible be "worth" more than the amazing electronics of, say an iPod (which are generally overpriced!) well, he is clearly unqualified to speak about audio quality... or value for that matter. 

 

[Lance Campeau]

Quote:

"he is clearly unqualified to speak about audio quality... or value for that matter" 

 
I am more then qualified to speak freely on this topic. I am amazed at how many people who claim to be audiophiles have little understanding of what "audio fidelity" actually is...
 
Audio recording and reproduction is an art form.
 
      From a scientific standpoint, the current methods of recording and reproducing audio are based more then a century old technology that does not even come close to reproducing audio with any true fidelity. That is to say, even the best set of speakers in a room or in your ears can only provide a rather vague approximation of what audio occurred during a recording session. It is mathematically impossible to reproduce sound with true fidelity. The original sound wave goes through so many electrical and acoustic transformations during the recording process and playback process that it is not even close to being what it was originally. 
 
Its laughable to me, the current trend of mastering audio discs with an 6-8 dB of dynamic range has given a whole generation of young people a very warped sense of what "good" is supposed to sound like. Let me sum it up... an overly clipped audio mix downgraded to a lossy MP3 format then squeezed through tiny earbuds... not exactly Hi-Fi.
 
Your best chance for true audio fidelity? Try listening to a solo violin recorded @ 192 Khz, 24 bit, binaural in an anechoic chamber. 
 
No more lectures on what audio fidelity means thank you... 

 

[EddieE]

FYI
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

 

[maverickronin]

You know, your're right...but for all the wrong reasons so I don't know if that actually counts.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

There is quite a bit of misinformation in that video... First off... I'm pretty sure all of us here know that driver technology is developed, and usually marked up headphones are a result of development costs, not production costs. Is it true that most headphones cost a few dollars to make in China despite the branding? Of course. Slap a "b" on it and make it $180, or put a Black and white cable and call them Bose and make it $100. It is a consumer's market. However, and this is big, because I was perfectly fine with the video until he said something I KNOW is not true. And that is that you cannot try on in ear headphones. I know for a FACT this is incorrect. How do I know? Because the store I work at AC Gears has a few sample in ears to try out. We have the most popular ones. Given some of the higher ended we don't, but that is more because of lack of stock than lack of want to have a demo pair. All we do is have a box of alcohol wipes to keep them sanitary. If a company like Best Buy wanted to they could do the same, I know Staples had Beats in ear on demo as well as the Solo too. It is possible.
 
And I'll say this now... EVERY store he said I hate. I cannot say he is a real tech buff if he LIKES those stores. Walmart? Best Buy? Target? They ALL feed into the capitalist nature of America. And real tech buffs don't shop there. A tech buff in NYC shops at a store like B&H, or even better on-line shops. Best Buy offers fantastic services for the IGNORANT user, not the educated user. That is why they can charge $80 for virus removal and $150 for system optimization, and $100 for HDTV "calibration." (Those numbers are all made up, but I'm sure the prices are ridiculous for Geek Squad service). Don't get me wrong, if I got a job there I'd take it, and I'd buy things with my discount, but I don't go out of my way to buy anything from there except the occasional Bluray disk.Everything else? There are better places to shop. Get ideas from stores like Best Buy and then look elsewhere. They are a corporate dog. Know how you know? They advertise Beats by Dr. Dre as REAL DJ cans. My friend is a Trance artist that is signed to Armada Music. No DJ he knows will touch Beats with a 10 meter pole. That is marketing at its worst. I say worst because they are misinforming 90% of America. It is a shame because most won't do their research. Though, most people interested in Beats wouldn't know what to do with a Frequency Response table or any of the information that we all here come to depend on to make an informed decision about headphones.
 
Now, please don't let my qualms about his misinformation and general idiocy make it seem like I don't agree with his underlying point, but... if he thinks that iPods are more expensive to produce, then he is sorely mistaken. All technology is insanely cheap to make now a days. I wonder if he knows that the reason why iPod now relies on "Other companies" to produce their product is because it became CHEAPER to do so. Apple for the longest time were a closed 100% in house company, but it came to a point where they were taking a loss in development, and it became much much cheaper to produce products with chipsets that were already in mass production. You don't think mark-up on iPods are extremely high? You are sorely mistaken. Pretty much everything is made in a third world country now a days. The pieces of technology that aren't tend to be more expensive. But if anything is made in China, they are sent batches of parts (chances are the parts are also made in China unless we are talking about fabric, in which case they may get certain fabrics from certain countries eg: Egyptian cotton) and the company gives instructions on how to make them. They make a profit off of that, but the reason why you can find really well made knockoffs that are the same is because they make more money from making bootlegs and selling them themselves using the same materials. It is all consumerism at its finest. And America made it this way.
 
Just to finish off... I think there is one thing that I don't think he realizes something about consumerism in headphones that makes the mark-up worth it in my opinion. Company's customer support and backing of their products. If you break your $1 headphones from the dollar store you just buy another pair, no harm. But if you find a headphone that you really like, and you spend a bit of cash on it. I guarantee the company will stick by them and fix or replace them if they break (assuming you didn't abuse them). You really get what you pay for. I stopped buying cheap phones. I have one pair of throw away Sony's that I bought years ago from my campus store (I was desperate) that I now only use in the gym. Because... well I am paranoid about what will happen if one of my good pairs gets caught in a machine. And the difference in sound quality of those compared to my HJE900s is like night and day (actually its probably more drastic than that, but I cannot think of a more drastic analogy... Maybe Dark side of the moon and the surface of the sun?). Whatever... I think more than anything the mark up is for the name and for the trust.
 
If I was going to compare that concept to a drastic analogy its like... going to a hospital for a procedure and paying through the nose for the assurance that you have a well trained staff and the hospital's backing that tell you they will make sure you stay safe, and the black market doctor who performs the same procedure from his basement with his team for a fraction of the cost. Can they both get the job done? Likely yes, but where would you rather be if there were complications?

 

[DJGeorgeT]

yes we know what audio fidelity means. This is why we have the sound science forum. This is not the forum to diss audiophiles or to discuss modern mastering practices. I would also suggest you get your huge ego under control as well. It is annoying and you are moving the discussion away from OP.