"the only physical difference was an additional piece of foam inside the cheaper HD555 headphones, blocking about 50% of the outside-facing vents"
They are likely still making a good profit on the $200.00 "cheaper" pair - just goes to show what a rip-off the $350.00"premium" level of equipment is. Sennheiser should be embarrassed. I hope buyers take notice and send their money elsewhere.
This term demonstrates a lack of understanding of market dynamics.
As a company you aim for a certain profit when developing and later manufacturing and selling a product. The market has multiple segments and ideally you re-use design and manufacturing processes for multiple segments. Simply speaking, you can basically sell a single tier for $250 or differentiate by different means into a $150 tier and a $350 premium tier. In the end, people with higher quality demands will pay a significant, dis-proportionate premium. So, you can tap into that, which means the premium tier essentially cross-subsidizes the cheap tier. Everybody angry at this practice needs to understand that they couldn't just sell the premium tier for $150. They'd need to sell it for $250, or whatever the weighted mean is. Worse, they'd likely sell fewer items in total, so $280 or some such is more likely to reach the same total profit.
Really, it's not about being evil, it's about economy.
>In the end, people with higher quality demands will pay a significant, dis-proportionate premium. So, you can tap into that, which means the premium tier essentially cross-subsidizes the cheap tier. Everybody angry at this practice needs to understand that they couldn't just sell the premium tier for $150. They'd need to sell it for $250, or whatever the weighted mean is. Worse, they'd likely sell fewer items in total, so $280 or some such is more likely to reach the same total profit.
Another example is selling books for cheaper in countries with lower incomes. Yet another example is countries charging more for access to national parks to people from richer countries than poorer countries. And another example is using coupons to get discounts, or student discounts, etc.
It is not a perfect mechanism, and sometimes the subsidies are not from and to the populations that would make it "fair", but on a population wide level, it works pretty well.
The consumer is paying for slight sound improvement and the prestige of owning the nicer pair. You may not think it is worth the extra money but apparently it is for some.
This is no different then offering coupons to more ‘cost sensitive’ buyers
A Audi/VW mechanic I know put it best "They all mostly use the same parts so maintenance and repairs cost the same...might as well buy the one that sells for more used"
It depends on what you want. If you are planning to resell the car after a certain length of time the best bet is the Audi. If you are buying used and want "close" to the same performance buy VW (Audi has higher power, often different suspension, better sound deadening and way more options).
In my case...I bought a used VW. So I didn't take the advice...but I don't ever plan on reselling. I repair cars myself and run them far longer than a typical person does. By the time I am done with my car it will probably be sold for scrap due to miles...even though everything will likely be replaced at least once.
> “might as well buy the one that sells for more used
Not sure I follow this logic. Seems unlikely the higher resale value is going to fully cover the higher price you buy it for (whether you buy new or used)?
I guess "hold their value longer" is a better wording...but that is the point.
Easier to sell used? More desirable/rare? He bought/fixed and resold mostly Audi/VW but specialized in European cars.
I have owned 2 VW and 1 Audi. They all had very similar intervals on things breaking. I will say though I much preferred to drive the Audi...but unfortunately a 2001 allroad only lasts so long :)
If you follow that logic, then the Dacia Sandero is the only car you can buy. Every other car just comes with pointless overpriced extras that nobody needs.
In reality, the brand of a car is extremely important to most people who buy cars.
(But speaking of VW transmissions, I don't know why anyone would buy a VW. Their manuals always seem to be having issues with the clutch, and DSG is the worst driving experience I've ever had. Maybe their EVs work better)
I knew a guy who had been working on a VW/Audi manufacturing line in Belgium. I think they were assembling golf and A3. Both models were assembled on the same line, I wouldn't vouch that all posts were exactly assembling same parts, that wouldn't be true, especially as fit and finish and some specs are different, but for his particular post in the line, he was installing same part and was only told to put glove before working on the Audi ones, basically to avoid leaving fingerprints somewhere most customers would never ever look anyway.
To be honest, I just once drove a Sharan with DSG for a day, and I hated the way it handled when parking and driving slowly. It felt like the worst parts of driving an automatic combined with the worst parts of driving a manual.
$350 is hardly the high end market for headphones. That’s the general consumer market top end, barely getting into real Hifi money spenders (who drop hundreds of dollars on extremely dubious products like “balanced” cables etc)
To counter, not caring about anything you've just written and looking purely at the end result is also part of the economy.
Consumers generally don't want to sympathize with companies and I don't think it's healthy if too many people did either. It's a tug of war to find a balance.
The core of this issue to me is about feeling lied to through vague implications. The product number is higher, the physical appearance of the headphones look better, it cost more, so therefore they must have put more effort into it to justify the price so the sound quality must also be better.
I agree. I don’t mind something being more expensive, but I feel like companies should have to ‘show their work’ to some degree. That way customers can gauge if the additional effort was worth the price difference.
I’m sure most customers in this case would not feel like this was worth the price difference.
But they are selling the premium tier for $150. It's the same set of headphones.
It would be as if Apple sold you one computer for $1,000, but the exact same computer in a different case for $2,000, with the only difference being they put a bunch of malware on the first one so it runs slower.
That's not "re-use design and manufacturing processes for multiple segments", it's intentionally breaking half the product line to sell at a lower price.
> That's not "re-use design and manufacturing processes for multiple segments", it's intentionally breaking half the product line to sell at a lower price.
Sure, you can call it like that if you will. You are free not to buy any products from a company doing this if you don't like it.
As I explained above, they could stop doing that, but then the product would cost more. That may be nice for somebody who wants the premium product version for $280 instead of $350. But I'm sure there are people around who are fine with the simpler ("broken") one if that means they only need to pay $150. And since there are, there is obviously a demand, so it's obviously not all bad what the company is doing.
Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it. (Oh, and in this particular case, you can just buy the cheap one and do the mod. Be happy that you saved $200 instead of ranting that this is wrong in the first place. The more you rant, the harder they will make it for next time.)
Obviously? I'm not searching for a personal shopping solution in this thread; I would hope it's obvious that I'm not going to buy this pair of headphones.
>The more you rant, the harder they will make it for next time.
I think, and this one might just be a wild and crazy idea, next time they can not deliberately break their product line to sell at a lower cost.
My hope when I buy a product is that the company is selling me the best product they can at a particular price point. I don't mind the company making a profit. In fact, I want them to! I just don't appreciate the expectation that I need to break apart every product to determine if they are intentionally sabatouging their product line.
The Centris -> Quadra transition was a similar computer, but not the same. For example, the Centris 610 was a 20 MHz 68LC040 and the Quadra 610 released shortly thereafter was a 25MHz 68040 (some shipped with a 25MHz 68LC040, though).
So right. I think I was thinking of the Performa sub-brand.
The Macintosh Performa is a family of personal computers designed, manufactured and sold by Apple Computer, Inc. from 1992 to 1997. The Performa brand re-used models from Apple's Quadra, Centris, LC, Classic, and Power Macintosh families with model numbers that denoted included software packages or hard drive sizes. Whereas non-Performa Macintosh computers were sold by Apple Authorized Resellers, the Performa was sold through big-box stores and mass-market retailers such as Good Guys, Circuit City, and Sears.
“Jip” is phonetically identical to a slur that refers to ripping someone off, so I was curious about what you meant and found this forum post that goes into detail. Kind of fascinating to think of the incentives and how they play out.
This person seems to leave out some info. A previous coworker spent some time as GC employee. He would tell stories of each month's jip awards to the employees that brought in the most jip. There's the price on the sticker, and then there's the absolute lowest price GC will sell for. As the comment in that thread suggests, buying from GC is something to not be done without researching first. Similar to buying a car
Remarkably few people whine about the use of VW branded parts that are used in VWs, that also show up in Audis, Porsches, Lamborghinis, and Ducatis. (Mostly because it lets them buy replacement parts at a fraction of the price than if they'd only ever made a few hundred of those parts just for the Porsche GT3.
> Everybody angry at this practice needs to understand that they couldn't just sell the premium tier for $150. They'd need to sell it for $250, or whatever the weighted mean is.
it should be stressed that this is only true if we add the assumption that they must make the same amount of money, which isn't part of the thought exercise
thus, "need to" should be "want to, because they want more money"
Unless Sennheiser can prove that the 555s are being sold at a loss, there is no "cross-subsidizing" happening here. You talk as if "the markets" and "the economy" are some naturally occuring phenomena that are matter of fact and non-negotiable.
> Unless Sennheiser can prove that the 555s are being sold at a loss, there is no "cross-subsidizing" happening here.
Nope. That's part of the misconception here. It suffices that they are being sold for less profit than the target profit margins of the company. And that's very likely the case, given the situation with the premium-tier offering. Every reasonable company cancels projects not bringing in enough profits, since shareholders want to see a return on investment. Non-zero profit is not enough.
> You talk as if "the markets" and "the economy" are some naturally occuring phenomena that are matter of fact and non-negotiable.
I'd indeed claim that market mechanisms can be treated like natural laws, just like gravity or natural selection. You can steer them with taxes or other incentives, just like you can steer how gravity or natural selection impact you. But the mechanisms themselves work no matter if you like them or not, or if you find them "evil" or not.
And I say this as a lefty who is in favor of radical inheritance tax and such. It's important to understand the thing you try to regulate.
> Every reasonable company cancels projects not bringing in enough profits, since shareholders want to see a return on investment. Non-zero profit is not enough.
I see very little reason in cancelling profitable projects. Also, framing my comment as a "misconception" is kinda indisgenious. This is a philosophical disagreement, hard to frame my point of view as objectively wrong.
> I see very little reason in cancelling profitable projects.
Happens all the time everywhere. Money wants to maximize profits. If company A brings you 2% return and company B 5%, then the money will gravitate towards company B. It's not that company A doesn't have profitable projects, perhaps all of their projects are profitable. But just less so than company B, on weighted average. And that's not bad. A reasonable society prefers to use its resources optimally. That's where market mechanisms and society objectives align, and that's why we are embracing a market-based economy. (There are other factors than profits of course, and that's where government regulation comes in. But all else equal, the above example of companies A and B holds and illustrates my point.)
I encourage you to try a management role in a for-profit business and after a few years we can chat again.
> Also, framing my comment as a "misconception" is kinda indisgenious.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I just see this line of arguments now and then and it seems to me that there is some fundamental knowledge of the involved mechanisms lacking.
The cross-subsidy means that while they have gross margin on the 555, it would not be enough to cover R&D & make net profit without the additional sales of the higher margin 595. In other words, they could not afford to develop & bring the 555 to retail by itself, even if the sale price is higher than the simple cost of manufacturing.
That wouldn't be cross subsidy, that would be selling at a loss, right? I don't think any item has ever been sold for the sum of its bill of materials. The price is always bill of materials + labor + some profit, and here "labor" includes R&D.
Sounds like a "bullshit job". Note that I did not say: it should be illegal, or that it’s not maximizing profits for ownership, so please go away if that’s what you want to say to me.
Instead of justifying the status quo, I think we would all benefit if we retired the concept of an economy that incentivizes companies to act evil in order to succeed in it.
Edit: 'evil' is a loaded word. I'm generally referring to profit being the only measure of success. I for one would like to see other KPIs enforced by government institutions, such as 'environmental impact' or 'human benefit'.
I don't get what's evil about it. If you want the expensive headphones and can afford them, get them. If you think they are too expensive, get other ones.
Edit: want I wanted to say is, that prices are arbitrary. They are a number on a label. As a customer you pick what suits you best. If you think Sennheiser or Apple is overpriced, buy something else. It is their decision to set a price, as it is your decision what to buy. You are also not an "evil" customer, if you don't buy their headphones.
I said companies are acting 'evil', not that customers are evil for not spending money.
You don't get what's evil because you're reacting to the environment you know, but you don't have to. Imagine a better environment where your options are not limited to "expensive headphones" or "less expensive headphones".
The alternative to the "'expensive headphones' vs 'less expensive headphones'" choice is not "less expensive headphones". Best case scenario, it's "slightly less expensive headphones but still more expensive than the originally less expensive ones". Or perhaps "they stop manufacturing headphones".
We're not living in a dream world. The conditions you set have consequences in how people behave. Not just individuals, but also companies.
Everybody arguing like this in the thread seems to be missing that the company is offering cross-subsidized headphones for $150. If you actually make them stop the two-tier system, then they would stop offering those for $150 and would need to sell the single-tier product for over $200. There will be some people who can't afford that. So your activism would prevent them from getting nice headphones for $150. Who's evil now?
Very correct, but you’re missing their point. What’s “evil” is that the folks who’ve spent their life designing, optimizing, investing in, and producing these products aren't doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts, but selfishly in the pursuit of a better life.
What is “evil” to these posters is always “profit above the value of goods provided”. It doesn’t matter whatsoever that the (subjective) material and emotional situation of every happy sennheiser buyer, employee, and investor is better than before.
> What’s “evil” is that the folks who’ve spent their life designing, optimizing, investing in, and producing these products aren't doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts, but selfishly in the pursuit of a better life.
Sure. That's true though to different degrees for everybody participating in a market-based economy. You can call all of us "evil", but then the term loses most of its meaning.
As a circuit designer and audio tech person I'd highly caution against simply equating "visually the same" with "technically the same" without measurements and thorough checking.
E.g. I could easily build exactly the same circuit multiple times, once for x Euros once for 10x Euros and once for 100x Euros just by picking the best components out of a heap and having them go to the 10x or 100x models.
Visually this would look exactly the same, but in terms of tolerances there would be a huge difference. Same can be true for mechanical parts.
I am not saying corporations are not greedy, I'd just say without measurement we can just assume it is the same without knowing.
I don't believe Sennheiser still make or sell either of the mentioned models. I might be wrong, but I recall them both being superseded some years ago.
In any case, for less than the 595's original MSRP, these days you can get an HD 6XX that very perceptibly outdoes both 5-series models in frequency response. Yours is more of a 2013 complaint than a 2023 one, I think.
Amazon still has some 555s but the top hits for the 595s list them as discontinued. I was trying to determine the price difference since I didn’t spot it in the article.
It was somewhere around a hundred bucks, as I recall. The argument you're making wouldn't necessarily have been a bad one in its day, but its day is long past; the current successors of these models, the HD 569 and HD 599, differ in price by $20.
Yeah I don’t think I’d be too keen to disassemble my headphones and potentially break or chip them to save myself the price of lunch. If it was a difference of half the price? Maybe. But not 15%.
> Sennheiser should be embarrassed. I hope buyers take notice and send their money elsewhere.
Hell to the nah.
Sennheiser is the last decent manufacturer of headphones. Everything else is literal garbage (especially headsets, which prove that there's some law of physics by which if you add a microphone to a pair of headphones the entire thing will fall apart in around a year).
I just hope they stay in business. Logitech's gotten way more of my money over the years as I've bought replacement after replacement headset once they invariably break down, as well as proprietary lithium batteries that literally last a fraction as long as the rechargeable AAAs in my Sennheisers (which haven't even ran out once in over a year of using them ~15 hours per day)!
I'm not sure I'd call them the _last_ decent manufacturer of headphones - perhaps if you only include brands that target the consumer/prosumer space. Beyerdynamic, for example, still make excellent products, including headsets and supply spare parts for headphones manufactured decades ago.
> Sennheiser is the last decent manufacturer of headphones.
Are you just not familiar with many headphone manufacturers? I had Sennheisers years ago and they were fine, but since then I've had headphones from Sony, AudioTechnica, and Shure (just to name a few) which I've much preferred to the Sennheisers I had.
It isn't a given - we have no idea how much R&D went into those... maybe to design the shape of that plastic entire research teams invented new methods of acoustic modelling...
Both the HD555 and 595 were very competitively priced (!), were popular and sold well. How exactly do you think that companies price their products other than "what enough people are willing to pay"?
There is a significant gap between charging high prices for a quality product that people want to buy, and charging even higher prices by deceiving your customers about quality.
I’m curious if the chi-fi market will take over headphones in the coming years.
IEMs are a bit easier to be competitive at, not having to worry about acoustic effects of ear/head shape, ergonomics/comfort is much simpler with IEMs, etc.
But clearly good headphones are still working on a massive margin.
Going by Crinacle the current king of chi-fi is Moondrop.
Personally I own Moondrop Aria IEMs for on the road, and for home Shure 840a cans with 1540 pads to kill the extreme treble. My cans before that were Audio Technica M40x with felt mod + new pads.
I’m excited to see if chi-fi will be able to dethrone either of those bang-for-buck kings.
I did a similar surgery on a pair of Sony over the ears I mostly used when travelling, the older 900N.
It helped, but it's still no match for my SIVGAs :)
> Going by Crinacle the current king of chi-fi is Moondrop.
Agreed, I have their USB-C DAC, it's wonderful when used with the very comfortable SIVGA :)
It's hard to express what I like about the Linsoul: they are extremely versatile (custom cable etc) while also being very affordable (about $40) while offering an audio quality way above far pricier IEM.
So I purchased a few and keep a pair everywhere I may need them (car, office...) to have a consistent music experience without having to bother carrying them.
That's still possible with $200+ IEM, but not something I'd naturally do.
For music, I prefer something fully passive with a balanced TRRS cable, so both features are N/A on the models I use :)
When I need ANC, I have a pair of Sony XM and while they are great for these 2 parameters (ANC and good battery life), the SIVGA and LINSOUL offer me a better musical experience which is something I care about a whole lot more!
If it would be easy to find out who actually makes the stuff no one would buy the brand.
Seriously, EU should make some legislation against this kind of shady shit. It's confusing the consumer. If you don't want to make headphones anymore stop making them. Or license the "technology" but make them say "Sonova headphones with Sennheiser technology"
No. But I didn't think it was that bad in the first place. They offer a product for a price. As a customer, I'm free to take it or leave it based on merits. I'm not familiar with this model, but at least one thing must be true.
1. A competitor offers an alternative product at a better price. 2. Sennheiser produces these more efficiently than anyone. 3. All alternatives have similar margins. 4. No other manufacturer has a similar product.
Whatever the case may be, it will inform the rational comparison shopping process. This is a discretionary item. There's probably some economics name for this, but it's not insulin. Sennheiser isn't coercing anyone.
> I hope buyers take notice and send their money elsewhere.
I'm currently in the market for both in-ears and over-ears. Was looking into HD 25 model for over-ears. What other brands are worth looking into? KEF? Focal? Meze?
MX 150/100 if you want to have a mic, DT990 Pro if you want open-back and DT770 Pro for closed-back.
Worth mentioning that they're studio headphones, so if you like headphones with a lot of bass you might have to consider other models.
At home I use Sennheiser Game One, before they were rebranded to EPOS. I really, really love them so if you can find them second-hand, go for them. They're hooked up to a Sennheiser GSX 1000. I use this setup for almost three years now and I'm really happy.
For in-ears I use Marshall Mode EQs, I'm on the third pair now and am also really happy. They've got a lot of bass but when I'm commuting I actually prefer it over "true" sound :)
As always with headphones, YMMV. I care about good sound but I'm not that much of an audiophile to care about exact frequency curves etc.
I wonder why you're on your third pair of Marshall Mode EQs :)
I'm partly having a go at them because I have a pair lying around that broke in less than a year. I usually go through a pair in a year (a year and a half) as I'm not very careful with the way I take care of my heaphones/in-ears. However, having said that, I think the EQs have a pretty mediocre build quality. For example, with the way I handled them, the cover of one in ear piece, fell of after a couple of months, and 6-8 months in the jack connector wires got a bit too much wear and tear and no longer connect properly. Also their EQ toggle made the treble (for the Electronic/DnB/Metal music I listen to) a bit too harsh.
Personally for earbuds/earphones I'd recommend anything which is as flat as possible and then you can boost up your preferred range. Alternatively you can go with a pair that has a measured profile (https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq), which you can use to normalizes the frequency response and tweak it after.
For example I went with the cheap AKG Type-C earbuds, which have very harsh mids towards treble (https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/samsung/akg-type-c), but because their sound profile is within the database linked above, I could use Wavelet on Android to compensate for it (and EasyEffects on the desktop) to have them be as neutral as possible, and then boost on top of that. For a ~$10'ish pair of earbuds I am quite impressed. I also had to chose them because I have a "modern" phone that decided that a Jack is so 20th century.
> I wonder why you're on your third pair of Marshall Mode EQs :)
I guess it's a mix between nostalgia and me just liking how the songs I like sound on them. They're the first pair of in-ears I bought myself.
> I think the EQs have a pretty mediocre build quality
I'll agree with you on that. The first pair lasted a year and the second not much longer. Then I just went with whatever. Two years ago I wanted to try out "good" in-ears and bought a pair of Moondrop Starfields. They were okay, but a bit flat, the cable broke, bought a different cable, which I've stepped on. Then I remembered that I was a fan of the Mode EQs like 6 years ago and bought a pair out of curiosity, which was end of 2022. And I just really like how they sound, and that they're light, and that they fit well, and that they look good. I don't know...I just like them :D
Your explanation about measured profiles and Wavelet/EasyEffects sounds intriguing. I think I will try this approach with a different pair of headphones, I really wonder what you can get out of cheap in-ears. I tried to use EQs from time to time but I always end up tuning things for 30m without especially satisfying results. AutoEQ would help because it's automated :D Thanks!
Beyer also recently release the DT 700/900 Pro X are someone of a spiritual successor to the classics. Importantly they now feature a detachable cables, includes a USB-C one with internal DAC and mic.
You're right! I didn't want to recommend the X versions because I never tried them myself, but I think judging by the feedback they get online they would be a good choice as well.
The only downside is the cost. The non-X versions cost $140, the X-versions $220. Not sure if the $80 are worth it for me.
I picked up a pair of the 700 X's a couple of weeks ago - no complaints so far. The replaceable cable removes the only weak point in an otherwise completely repairable product. That lets me amortise any difference across a decade or so.
> That lets me amortise any difference across a decade or so
Good point, hadn't considered this! Well, I bought the DT 990Pro in the beginning of 2023 and the MMX150s like three weeks ago, so I'll see for how long I'll use them :D
MMX150 are for the office because they're closed-back and the microphone is actually astonishingly good. At least people noticed in MS Teams calls.
Hmm, I actually am considering buying bassy over-ears, because all the over-ears I have are pretty neutral/studio sounding. I game a lot of singleplayer story-games and sometimes I feel that a bit more bass would be enjoyable for explosions, gunshots etc.
Thanks for the recommendation, never heard of SIVGA :)
Beyerdynamic makes great headphones. Personally though I love my Audio Technica cans. I find I want different ones for different reasons - a flat frequency response isn't always the most pleasant
Air Pods Max. Totally worth it. Automatically turns on/off, automatically pairs with the device you're using. Active Noise Cancellation is a godsend, i.e. if you have people with lawnmowers around you, this will improve your life more than anything else you can buy. Effortless to clean. Ear cushions come off and you can just put them into the washing machine. Great build quality, has a nice volume dial with click sounds. Build-in microphones. Sound is top notch too.
There are lots of magnetic charging adaptors on Amazon and eBay which come with USB-C, Micro-USB, and Lightning tips, all of which share a common interface with their cables. Most of them seem to come from the same manufacturers; there are about three styles, and while no two are interchangeable, it's usually not hard to find a variety of sellers for whichever style you want.
Don't expect much in data support even from versions that claim to offer it, but they all deliver power just fine, and it's been getting on for a decade since I've had to screw around with finding the right cable to charge anything. Saves insertion cycles on the device connector socket, too.
AudioTechnica have been consistent in quality over the years. They have a number of models to choose from for every purpose, at fair prices. The models don't change every year and are supported and field repairable. I still use the ATH-M40fs I bought 20+ years ago. The newer ATH-M50 would be my choice if I had to pick a new pair today.
i've had two pairs of ATH-M50s (one black, one white) and they both turn into a giant mess once the painted vinyl (or whatever it is) starts flaking off after a few years.
I had the HD 25 and found them super uncomfortable. Sold them and got a pair of Sony MDR-7506 for 100$ years ago. Haven’t looked back. The ear pillows (not sure how they’re called) are made of pleather which eventually delaminates. Replacements are 30–45$ which is a bit much. But with some patience you can rub it all off and expose the velvet underneath which makes them perfectly useable again. The pillows sometimes split at the seams but again nothing you can’t fix with a bit of thread.
Compatible replacement pillows exist but I’ve sampled some of them and they made the sound more muffled and bassy with less trebles in my opinion so I went back to the original pillows. Im not audiophile at all but could hear a difference when comparing them side to side (I have two identical pairs)
They also come with an exploded diagram on the box so you can take them apart if you wish.
And they’re extremely comfortable. I’m not a pro but I understand they’re made for sound engineers to be worn all day.
I don’t know about their cans but I do know that in the early days of ear buds I played a Cat and Mouse game with Sony where about every second new model they produced had really good bass response, often in a fairly reasonably priced model. I ended up buying backups to carry me through to the next next model. Looking back, I wonder if Sony had two teams with alternating release cycles, and the engineers on one team were better than the other. If it was some sort of marketing strategy it’s over my head.
I thought the only problem with MDR-7506's were that they were not comfortable enough for wearing for long periods? All reviews I read online said this.
I find them super comfortable. They don’t feel like they’re squeezing my head unlike others that are too tight, they’re not very heavy, they cushions are wide and spread the pressure well without folding my ears uncomfortably… I personally find them very comfortable.
For over-ears is good to decide if you want open or closed cans.
That can make a huge difference, especially if you are going to use them even in slightly noisy environment.
I'm very happy with DT-1770 pro by Bayerdynamic for closed.
And *extremely* happy with Focal Clear for open back.
I'm currently using a Schiit Modi for my DAC and a Schiit Vali 2 for my headphone amp. They seem to work pretty well to my ears, whether they're driving my Meze 99 Classics headphones, or the PreSonus Eris E4.5 powered speakers.
You're right, it's definitely an expensive hobby and you can spend a lot of money chasing that dragon so to speak. I was lucky in that I got something that sounded very good to me with my first set of purchases, but I was obsessed for a while with reading every detail about potential purchases.
It'd be a lot easier to get a "personal" end game setup off the rip these days.
My first setup was a "Zero" DAC/AMP off Ebay in 2008, paired with Grado SR-80s. The Zero amp was something some dude in like hong kong was building. The actual amp was nothing fancy, but it used an opamp that was super high end for a budget component way back in the day.
I would try a few different ones if you can. I tried Meze, Sennheiser, Audio Technical, Bose wireless, and many others over the years and some just didn’t fit my head or ears right or sounded off in some way. Everyone has different head and ears and personal preference for different sound and it’s very hard to know if it will click with you by reading reviews or marketing materials. It also depends on what it is you listen to the most. If you’re all about big orchestral pieces or chip tunes then your choice will be very different.
Personally I found wireless and active noise cancellation worthwhile tradeoffs to some audio quality because I end up wearing them when doing chores and on the plane and on calls when my kids are being loud.
I got the Bower Wilkins PX8 about 6 months ago and love it. I originally went with the PX8 over the Focal Bathys due to it being $100 cheaper than the Focal Bathys, more compact form factor, and the reportedly better noise cancellation. MDs have widely-reported problems with their Bluetooth connectivity.
However, I am Focal-curious. Some reviews have the FB noticeably better sound. And, right now, B&H is offering the FB at a $150 discount, dropping it below the BW.
I wouldn’t get HD25 unless you’re planning to DJ or play live in clubs. They’re not the most comfortable and sound is ok but not really enjoyable.
I picked up a pair of Phonon SMB-02 a few weeks back and they’re the best studio headphones I’ve had in 20 years of DJing and producing. The space they reveal is amazing and feel close to studio monitors.
All the audiophile in-ear headphones I’ve ever bought broke in less than a year; but none of my “cheap” headphones ever broke. Except my apple ear buds: those wore out pretty fast too. The cables are really low quality
I use AirPods atm: you don’t have to fiddle with getting a proper seal, you can still hear what’s around you, the open back sound stage feels great in all headphones, there’s less pressure buildup, and it has good software integration. I’m never going back to cords again if I can help it
The price a product sells for is driven purely by the market that you are selling it into. If the market will bear a higher price to maximize profit then it is in the company's best interest (and is indeed their responsibility to their shareholders) to sell it for that price. That actual cost to make the product has practically zero bearing on the pricing, other than setting a floor for which the product will make a profit.
If this pricing model is enough to get you to not buy a product then you probably will have a hard time finding anything to buy if you have a clue how much things actually cost to manufacture. I often look at products and get pissed off when I see the price because I have a good idea what the actual manufacturing cost is.
Lol, why embarrassed. Sennheiser was happy and still is happy, this tutorial will not reach nearly enough people to make a difference in their sales. It is a very cool tutorial, though.
Yes, they probably don't care. In some circles, quite often the ones where the most money is, a hacked pair of headphones will always sound worse than an untouched one, no matter if lab instrumentation would say otherwise.
Recall that after Apple bought BEATS headsets it was revealed that BEATS was putting dummy-metal into the headsets to make them heavier, thus resulting in the purchaser to think that they had better-than headsets based on the perceived weight of the headset - but the weight was not in higher-powered magnets in the drivers...
They are likely still making a good profit on the $200.00 "cheaper" pair - just goes to show what a rip-off the $350.00"premium" level of equipment is. Sennheiser should be embarrassed. I hope buyers take notice and send their money elsewhere.