Hacker News Reader

Comment by porphyra | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this pricing pretty in line with other high end ANC headphones?

e.g. Bowers & Wilkins PX8 ($699), Focal Bathys ($849), Sony WH-1000XM6 ($399), Kef Mu7 ($399), Bose QC Ultra ($449)

That's not what they were saying and the same can be said for those listed. But that they can cost the same as a Macbook Neo which arguably has significantly more technology in it.

A Moto G also has more technology than a Nakajima WPT-160 typewriter (which is still in production) but the latter costs more. Comparing "technology for the buck" across totally different kinds of products and markets sometimes just doesn't make any sense.

The point isn't for it to make sense necessarily, it's just simply an interesting thought and not one that always needs a logical answer in every case.

I recently bought 4 wooden chairs that costed me more than that but there is significantly more technology in a Macbook Neo

Exactly and its just interesting to think about that such insane engineering has gone into a product that costs less than 4 wooden chairs. Yes it can be explained logically but its just an interesting thought.

Those 4 wooden chairs don't stand the chance of turning into a brick, though.

Weird response. He said "I don't understand how a pair of headphones can be $549" and you responded "here are some headphones that are priced at $549".

Yeah. We know. It's just hard to understand how anyone can value headphones at this price. It's lunacy.

My Sony XM3's still going something like 8 years now. Incredible value.

I have a lot of Apple gear, these would be obvious next choice because of integration, but I struggle to justify why otherwise. They heavy, going to pain to repair and cost much more.

It costs that much because people are willing to pay more for better sound, better noise cancelling, etc, even if the returns are diminishing. Perhaps a $500 pair of headphones only sounds 3% better than a $200 pair. But people will still shell out for better headphones. Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better. The existence of numerous successful products on the market is evidence that this is a niche where people are willing to pay for such products.

It's kinda like, who decided that TVs and phones should cost the same? Or who decided that a khinkali should cost 3 times as much as a xiaolongbao?

Reading your parent comment and the responses, I feel be missing the point others are trying to make. There's much less technology, components, and material in a headphone compared to laptops. The circuitry in the headphones is closer in complexity to a charger than a laptop.

The cost of something doesn't always correlate with the technology, components, and material. A Hermes bag doesn't even have a single circuit in it compared to headphones and laptops. Yet it costs more.

> people are willing to pay more for better sound, better noise cancelling

> The cost of something doesn't always correlate with the technology, components, and material

Doesn't this actually contradict what you claimed originally, though?

This is false equivalence. You're describing the luxury market, a vertical that is built on decoupling the raw material cost from the price tag. And in reality it is more nuanced than just raw material as there is a lot of cost in r&d/marketing/operations etc. Nevertheless, products targeted to general consumers are much more sensitive to that deviation.

> better sound, better noise cancelling

You just casually threw in these claims without backing them up, when it has been proven that the Sony model (and even the others) you listed outperformed the Airpods pro in those exact departments at the time of its launch.

My comment literally also says "Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better."

I also have "etc" in my first sentence, which may include such things as: a stylish aluminum exterior, bells and whistles such as spatial audio, a more seamless bluetooth connecting experience with Apple devices, and so forth. These do not matter for everyone, but some people clearly care about that.

It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?

> It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?

Sorry, this is not the case at all, I am just trying to understand the justification for your original comment on the justification of the price (and quality).

Apologies if it came out too aggressive.

How much is your house worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it today. That's it. There's no right price. If they can cover costs and make a profit (or better yet a huge profit), then they're pricing it right. Sure, it doesn't work for you. It doesn't work for me either, which is why I don't have a pair. But they seem to be profitable, so there are enough people out there that want them. I just got off a plane a couple days ago and three people within one row around me each had AirPods Max on. Go figure. They're the new status symbol, I guess.

I mean, if we're talking any pair of headphones... a good Television certainly costs more than that, why should good sound be less worthy if investment?

Wait til you find out about literally every other area of discretionary spending.

First off, $150 more isn't a small amount to be considered "in-line" with the others. That's roughly 40% more.

The difference is also Apple neither has the audio legacy of those companies nor the quality of those products to warrant that kind of premium. To Apple, it is just another market they can go after, but a lot of those companies built their entire foundations on audio. You are not going to convince me Apple is in the same category as the company that invented the Walkman and CDs.

Also, if you look into the teardown videos, it's really a cheap driver from China - all plastic, not even using aluminium for the basket, just literally hard-glued onto the body. It's not repairable nor eco-friendly. It's anti-consumer. Sony uses Aluminium housing for their drivers and they are the cheapest in the lot.

> audio legacy of those companies

Ex studio tech here. Legacy doesn't cover contracted manufacturing.

I'm not defending apple here, but using chinese drivers (which I assume is a synonym for poor quality) is fine so long as they are binned for performance, and matched/tuned to housing. I'm assuming the mic inside the ear cup is there to do dynamic EQ.

Also the drivers are screwed into a solid aluminium housing, so they aren't glued.

NS10s which are the standard reference mixing speakers were chosen not because they were high quality, but because they were average. If you could get your mix to sound good on those, it'd sound great anywhere.

So yeah, they are expensive. Would I buy them? probably not. I'm reasonably happy with my plantronic jobbies. Are they perfect? no, are they comfortable? yes. Is the active noise cancelling actually effective? also no, but then ANC is only really useful for a small subset of noises types. (even on Sonys. )

Or Sennheiser momentum 4, 150 bucks and sound at least as good if not better, have absolutely huge battery compared to tiny apple one, more comfortable and generally work much better with non-apple ecosystem (also apparently they support multi-device pairing but I haven't used that one).

Don't pay the novelty price shortly after release, these go down quite a bit after introduction, ie last year Sony are basically the same device.

Sony actually listened and made the cups foldable again though

> Sennheiser momentum 4, 150 bucks

Where do you see these at 150? Lowest I see is 250.

Amazon price history: ranges between $187 and $430, with average $277. $250 now. (So I agree with your take.)

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0B6GHW1SX

a link?

Yeah, but anc is trash in the Sennheisers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com