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.
Also known as "rip-off".
See:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketsegmentation.asp
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.
This is no different then offering coupons to more ‘cost sensitive’ buyers
Large numbers of people look at a VW and think to themselves: "this is a nice car, but what I really want is to pay a whole lot more for it".
(I have a SEAT, which is for people who think the reverse. VAG, so same engine, transmission, gearbox, software, etc. as VW, Audi, Skoda).
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.
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)?
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 :)
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)
A Dacia is an old Renault, built cheaply. A VW Golf, a Skoda Octavia, a SEAT Leon and an Audi A3 are mostly the same car.
Also called: Citroën C1 (2005–2022) Peugeot 107 (2005–2014) Peugeot 108 (2014–2021)
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’m sure most customers in this case would not feel like this was worth the price difference.
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.
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 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.
How many times have I heard, "you know, since you're a cool dude, I can knock off X% for you"? Every. Single. Time.
Message #33 in this thread: https://www.strat-talk.com/threads/why-guitar-center-salesme...
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"
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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".
We're not living in a dream world. The conditions you set have consequences in how people behave. Not just individuals, but also companies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)!
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.
Therefore, the $350.00 'rip off' may not in fact be a rip-off. In fact, with the quantity of them they sell, they may barely cover the R&D costs.
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.
For me, it already has: more choice, better quality, unmatched comfort - and that's fully leaving aside the costs.
My favorite brands are SIVGA and LINSOUL.
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.
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!
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"
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.
Same logic after reading and accepting the comments above.
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'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 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!
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.
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.
I'd suggest the SV021 if you want bass, or the SV003 if you prefer the flatness of studio headphones like the Beyers.
I use them with a Sony Walkman DAP: best money I've ever spent!
Good bass matters for some styles: the SV021 is better when I listen to say Моргенштерн
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 :)
If you only have USB-C, pair them with a Moondrop DAC
Didn't know that Moondrop made DACs, I know them because I had a pair of Starfields.
Moondrop Dawn, quite good
when you listen to what now?
It's Russian rap - though for the last few years he's been moving more into RnB, which I don't like as much
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.
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'm very happy with DT-1770 pro by Bayerdynamic for closed. And *extremely* happy with Focal Clear for open back.
I occasionally also mix on them.
My current rig is a Schitt Jotenheim DAC/Amp driving Hickman Ananda’s. (Roughly $600 amp driving $900 headphones).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
The 595s were competitive at their price point. They reviewed extremely well. They are considered good value.
The 555s were excellent value, using the same driver.
Neither is a ripoff. They're both good to excellent value when looking at the market.