Low $100s to $1000s. Is there a significant difference for home audio? Why pay more?

[afinepoint]

I went through many threads and didn't see a post discussing this topic. Apologies if I missed it.

Is there that much of a noticeable and significant difference between the audible performance of over the ear headphones costing a hundred or two and ones ten times that price? As much as I love the sound of well made and matched audio equipment I can not wrap my head around the concept of a headphone in the thousands being used for home audio. Can the untrained ear even hear a difference? My hearing is very good but . . . I can perhaps see the need in professional editing where the budget allows and the music engineering demands the best. But for home use?

I once asked a professional concert violinist if she could hear the difference between a Stradivarius and the best made modern violin. She said not likely. And certainly no average listener would ever be able to. She said owning a $10M violin is about the name and collectbility not sound. It must "sound" better because it costs $10M right? More money equals better. But this philosophy just doesn't always pan out. Especially with the imperfections and marked difference of human ears.

And a $3000+ home headphone . . .?

Help me get it.

 

[DVDdoug]

With headphones there is very little correlation between price and sound quality as you can see by looking at the price & "recommended" columns here. The AKG K371 at about $150 USD is generally higly-rated for sound quality.

There is also some personal preference (some people like more or less bass, etc.) and not everybody hears exactly the same thing with headphones because of the way they interact with the ear at high frequencies and how they fit can affect low frequencies.

Some people prefer open "hear through" headphones and some people prefer closed, and comfort is also a personal choice/preference.

With speakers it's different. It costs more to make a better speaker, especially if you want to fill a big room with good sound or if you want "realistic" bass you can feel in your body.

There will always be a difference with different speakers & headphones and you don't have to a "golden eared audiophile" to hear the difference.

Most electronics is very good and often better than human hearing unless you over-drive an amplifier into clipping (distortion).

And a $3000+ home headphone . . .?

It would most-likely be sold for home use to "audiophiles" to whom a high price often makes something more desirable.

Pros don't normally use headphones for mixing/mastering. Of course they don't want "bad sound" but they might be more concerned with reliability and ruggedness.

 

[AnalogSteph]

There was a time, 15+ years ago now, when HD650s were considered cream of the crop, unless you were one of the weirdos who splurged on MDR-SA5000s or exotic woodies or who had the budget for electrostats (predominantly Stax). The thought of $1000 headphones seemed outrageous to most of us when HD800s came out.

I would argue that yes, there is more to be had past the HD650 level (think DT1990s, HD800s, misc. planars, 'stats etc. - open 40 mm dynamics just don't have the bass handling capabilities of good planars and such for one), but diminishing returns hit hard, and there is no shortage of packaged hot air out there either. For many people who just want some all-round good mass-produced cans (without the need for exotic materials or being hand-crafted by nude virgins in a moonless night), something from the HD6xx family may be all they'll ever need, with yours truly probably being included. We're also lucky enough to be able to buy misc. planars in this price range these days (e.g. Sundaras). You can go a bit cheaper and not give up very much, e.g. with DT880s, still very nice cans. HD560S' are very decent, too. And if you have electronics with a bit of oomph you can also get inexpensive planars in the HE400SEs.

The most expensive cans definitely aren't always the best-engineered ones, that's for sure. The most effort tends to go into midrange mainstream products, where the product of per-unit profit and numbers reaches a maximum, and this is quite true in general. (For headphones that would be about $100-500ish.) Buyers of $1000 exotic motherboards often have to contend with poor BIOS support, and there is no shortage of engineering fails in supercars either.

There will always be a difference with different speakers & headphones and you don't have to a "golden eared audiophile" to hear the difference.

Yep.

 

[afinepoint]

DVD you wrote:

"With headphones there is very little correlation between price and sound quality as you can see by looking at the price & "recommended" columns here. The AKG K371 at about $150 USD is generally higly-rated for sound quality."

"Most electronics is very good and often better than human hearing unless you over-drive an amplifier into clipping (distortion)."


You're making my point. So are $3000 really worth it?

And I agree regarding loudspeakers. Design, room acoustics etc. But headphone designers are pretty much working with the same space.

I tried my wife's $25 headphones. $25 should not sound as good as they do.

So again why pay $$$$ (for home audio) when $$$ will do? And I do understand it's their money. If I could afford a Lamborghini I'd likely buy one too but a $100k Vette will outrun and outgun it for half the price.

 

[617]

There was a time, 15+ years ago now, when HD650s were considered cream of the crop, unless you were one of the weirdos who splurged on MDR-SA5000s or exotic woodies or who had the budget for electrostats (predominantly Stax). The thought of $1000 headphones seemed outrageous to most of us when HD800s came out.

I would argue that yes, there is more to be had past the HD650 level (think DT1990s, HD800s, misc. planars, 'stats etc. - open 40 mm dynamics just don't have the bass handling capabilities of good planars and such for one), but diminishing returns hit hard, and there is no shortage of packaged hot air out there either. For many people who just want some all-round good mass-produced cans (without the need for exotic materials or being hand-crafted by nude virgins in a moonless night), something from the HD6xx family may be all they'll ever need, with yours truly probably being included. We're also lucky enough to be able to buy misc. planars in this price range these days (e.g. Sundaras). You can go a bit cheaper and not give up very much, e.g. with DT880s, still very nice cans. HD560S' are very decent, too. And if you have electronics with a bit of oomph you can also get inexpensive planars in the HE400SEs.

The most expensive cans definitely aren't always the best-engineered ones, that's for sure. The most effort tends to go into midrange mainstream products, where the product of per-unit profit and numbers reaches a maximum, and this is quite true in general. (For headphones that would be about $100-500ish.) Buyers of $1000 exotic motherboards often have to contend with poor BIOS support, and there is no shortage of engineering fails in supercars either.

Yep.

This is a very good point. Sennheiser and to a lesser extent Beyer and maybe Sony or AKG were the best you could get, and their prices maxed out at $3-400. I had a pair of 580s I bought in 1999ish, and if I had been diligent about replacing the foam and cable they'd still sound good today - and I haven't heard anything that much better. Stax has always been around but they were always an exotic option and have issues with regards to bass. Sennheiser was the best high end option for like 20 years or something.

In recent years, the market exploded, with more and more expensive models. Sennheiser, somewhat ironically, responded to this trend by making what are probably the most expensive headphones you can buy; of course to their credit this includes an amplifier.

I would argue that some of the prices are defensible in terms of R+D, the Dan Clark headphones strike me as a genuine step forward, but mostly it's just manufacturer's responding to a curious latent demand for expensive headphones for consumers who would otherwise buy speakers but cannot because they can't afford houses or have bad taste in music.

 

[afinepoint]

. . . but mostly it's just manufacturer's responding to a curious latent demand for expensive headphones for consumers who would otherwise buy speakers but cannot because they can't afford houses or have bad taste in music.

Funny. Or just have money to burn.

 

[DonR]

For a lot of us, the inflection point of diminishing returns starts quite low down on the price curve. Of course, there are extreme exceptions which often see adverse returns at higher price points. The number of these exceptions seems to increase along with price.

 

[DVDdoug]

You're making my point. So are $3000 really worth it?

Well, that's up to the buyer. For "sound quality" probably no. You might not choose a $3000 headphone as your favorite in a blind listening test.

The AKG K371 seems to have a reputation for being flimsy, and perhaps it's not the most comfortable... (Mine haven't broken yet but I don't listen to them a lot and I don't carry them in my laptop bag and don't have kids.)

Like I said sometimes high price makes something more desirable, especially among "audiopools", and if it's half-way decent it will get rave reviews. And every manufacturer wants to sell the most expensive headphone, even if not too many people actually buy them.

 

[dlaloum]

My financial value/performance rule of thumb... (David's Law)

Each barely audible increment in audio quality will double the price of the component.

Corollary:

For a substantive "upgrade" (as opposed to barely noticeable) - you will need to upgrade by at least 3 increments (multiply price by 8x)

This assumes standard retail pricing... bargains are to be found, sometimes due to being used, refurbished, or just discounted, sometimes there is a market shift as a new technology or manufacturing method comes in and upsets things....

But overall - this rule of thumb has served me well for 40 years now....

So yeah - $25 headphones can sound great - and the next level up is going to be something like $200.... with the next step beyond that being more like $1500.

Also beware of "difference" as opposed to improvement.... when something sounds different and is substantially more expensive, we sometimes like to convince ourselves that the difference is an improvement...... Often, the emperor really IS wearing no clothes!

 

[afinepoint]

You might not choose a $3000 headphone as your favorite in a blind listening test.

I doubt few if any can without guessing. So I think it, as with so many other things, comes down to "perceived" improvement. "I believe therefore it is so"

Perfection is unattainable. It's like walking halfway to a wall, then halfway again and again. You never get there. But as we know with audio gear and many many other things each of those later steps will cost exponentially more. And actually hearing the difference for those steps is pure desire and most likely unprovable. And exotic woods and rare metals don't help cost or performance.

And I do understand the collective thoughts here. And appreciate them. Good advice.

 

[pinger]

Well, that's up to the buyer. For "sound quality" probably no. You might not choose a $3000 headphone as your favorite in a blind listening test.

The AKG K371 seems to have a reputation for being flimsy, and perhaps it's not the most comfortable... (Mine haven't broken yet but I don't listen to them a lot and I don't carry them in my laptop bag and don't have kids.)

Like I said sometimes high price makes something more desirable, especially among "audiopools", and if it's half-way decent it will get rave reviews. And every manufacturer wants to sell the most expensive headphone, even if not too many people actually buy them.

I just bought the K371's. So far so good. comfortable and no issues with quality

 

[formdissolve]

Dan Clark Stealth are $4k and some of the best measured headphones on this site (and Amir's favorities).. but that said, not sure I'd ever spend that much on headphones. I would love to hear them though.

I have the Dan Clark Aeon Open X which some people dislike, but I really enjoy them, especially as a companion to my similarly cheapish Sennheiser HD6XX. I'm not a fan of IEM's since they don't really fit well in my ears.

 

[kemmler3D]

diminishing returns hit hard,

I think this basically sums it up.

I personally think that some of the $1000+ headphones are better than just about anything you can find under $1000. For example, if you want really deep bass and really low distortion, most affordable over-ear headphones simply won't deliver.

However, is a $1500 headphone 10x better than the $150 AKGs mentioned earlier? No, not even close.

 

[Keith_W]

To understand why there is no correlation between price and performance, we need to understand the hi-fi market. There are two extremes when it comes to audio:

1. Small boutique manufacturers
2. Large corporations

... and everything else in between.

There are thousands of boutique manufacturers, there are even some here on ASR. These guys are very small operations, sometimes a one man show where one guy does the design, makes the cabinets, does the accounting, and everything else needed to keep a business afloat. Prices have to be higher because of low production runs and other inefficiencies that come from running a very small manufacturing operation. The quality can be a bit variable, if you think about it that's a lot of skills that one person has to obtain to make a speaker and sell it by themselves. Ask yourself if you can do it ... you may know how to design speakers, but do you know any carpentry and how to apply a finish? OK you may know both of those, but how much do you know about operating a small business? It's not that these guys don't make great stuff, but it is more likely that someone selling a Tannoy Westminster replica will not be able to beat the Tannoy when it comes to price.

Large corporations can hire teams of specialists to deal with more aspects of manufacturing speakers, and they can sell excellent product for a lower price, especially if they have huge production runs and outsource production of cabinets and speaker drivers to China. These guys are more likely to own anechoic chambers, Klippels, Audio Precision, B&K dummies, etc. and employ talented designers. Some even employ research teams like Harman. Think about all the design work that goes into a Sennheiser HD800, and how much YOU would have to charge if you were making a competitor. You likely don't own a foundry and a machine shop to make the metal castings, let alone the custom drivers. The situation is even more pronounced at the lower end of the scale - if you are going to sell headphones for $100, there is no chance a boutique manufacturer can compete.

So we have a situation where the cheap hi-fi market is dominated by large corporations with teams of people. The primary motivation is to make and sell as many low cost products as possible. Sometimes build quality and performance is a criteria, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes they may focus on features that we as enthusiasts do not want or need, e.g. Bluetooth connectivity and noise cancellation. They may focus more of the budget on manufacturing tolerances, or they may not - e.g. there are many examples of manufacturers having one QC for the general market and another QC that they send to reviewers. You may see evidence of cost cutting if you look closely, e.g. vinyl wrap instead of veneer for speaker cabinets, less internal bracing, cheaper grades of plywood ... where they can cut costs, they do it.

 

[afinepoint]

Dan Clark Stealth are $4k and some of the best measured headphones on this site (and Amir's favorities)..

Key word there is measured. But is that data humanly audible? Is it within the realm of aural distinction? Sorry I'm no cyborg. Nor as the cliche goes "golden eared".

And I'm sorry but once past your twenties and thirties we are kidding ourselves. I've and likely Amir have left those times in the dust. : D

 

[afinepoint]

To understand why there is no correlation between price and performance, we need to understand the hi-fi market. There are two extremes when it comes to audio:

1. Small boutique manufacturers
2. Large corporations

... and everything else in between.

There are thousands of boutique manufacturers, there are even some here on ASR. These guys are very small operations, sometimes a one man show where one guy does the design, makes the cabinets, does the accounting, and everything else needed to keep a business afloat. Prices have to be higher because of low production runs and other inefficiencies that come from running a very small manufacturing operation. The quality can be a bit variable, if you think about it that's a lot of skills that one person has to obtain to make a speaker and sell it by themselves. Ask yourself if you can do it ... you may know how to design speakers, but do you know any carpentry and how to apply a finish? OK you may know both of those, but how much do you know about operating a small business? It's not that these guys don't make great stuff, but it is more likely that someone selling a Tannoy Westminster replica will not be able to beat the Tannoy when it comes to price.

Large corporations can hire teams of specialists to deal with more aspects of manufacturing speakers, and they can sell excellent product for a lower price, especially if they have huge production runs and outsource production of cabinets and speaker drivers to China. These guys are more likely to own anechoic chambers, Klippels, Audio Precision, B&K dummies, etc. and employ talented designers. Some even employ research teams like Harman. Think about all the design work that goes into a Sennheiser HD800, and how much YOU would have to charge if you were making a competitor. You likely don't own a foundry and a machine shop to make the metal castings, let alone the custom drivers. The situation is even more pronounced at the lower end of the scale - if you are going to sell headphones for $100, there is no chance a boutique manufacturer can compete.

So we have a situation where the cheap hi-fi market is dominated by large corporations with teams of people. The primary motivation is to make and sell as many low cost products as possible. Sometimes build quality and performance is a criteria, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes they may focus on features that we as enthusiasts do not want or need, e.g. Bluetooth connectivity and noise cancellation. They may focus more of the budget on manufacturing tolerances, or they may not - e.g. there are many examples of manufacturers having one QC for the general market and another QC that they send to reviewers. You may see evidence of cost cutting if you look closely, e.g. vinyl wrap instead of veneer for speaker cabinets, less internal bracing, cheaper grades of plywood ... where they can cut costs, they do it.

I get your points and agree with much of it but I'm not asking why the prices are what they are but why someone pays it. Each time I see it the reason is subjective. Which makes sense. But could one consistency choose that headphone in blind tests. Doubtful.

Yes it may have the best curves but does that come out in superior, clearly audible real world performance? That appears to be arguable here.

 

[Keith_W]

I get your points and agree with much of it but I'm not asking why the prices are what they are but why someone pays it. Each time I see it the reason is subjective. Which makes sense. But could one consistency choose that headphone in blind tests. Doubtful.

Yes it may have the best curves but does that come out in superior, clearly audible real world performance? That appears to be arguable here.

The frequency response is by far the biggest predictor of what the headphone will sound like. However, unlike many people here, I do not tune the frequency response to comply to a target curve by referencing online measurements. I tune the FR using David Griesinger's DGSonicFocus, which tunes the FR to your own personal HRTF.

If you are asking whether there is something not measured which may result in better sound between more expensive headphones and cheaper ones - maybe. I do not think we have a good way of measuring the sense of space or open-ness of an open back headphone vs. a closed back, or perhaps I don't know enough about headphone measurements to know where to get that information from. All I can tell you is that the soundstage is different between headphones, and that seems to be independent of the frequency response.

 

[Ron Texas]

If you can't spend a million you might as well just listen to the radio in your car, LOL.

 

[kemmler3D]

Key word there is measured. But is that data humanly audible?

In the case of headphones, really the main measurement we care about is frequency response, with distortion sometimes being important. A good measurement in frequency response is quite audible, especially when it comes to headphones which often have large deviations from ideal.

And I'm sorry but once past your twenties and thirties we are kidding ourselves.

There are many types of hearing loss, but the one that's very common and comes on with age is loss of high-frequencies... but you can still pick out quite a bit of detail without hearing anything above 10khz. Also, critical listening skills and raw hearing ability are two different things. You don't need (especially) good ears to be a good listener.

IMO these are the drivers of a headphone's price, in order from most to least important:

1. Distribution channel (dealers / retailers automatically add about 100% to the price)
2. Brand reputation / recognition / marketing (Audeze sells for more than Bose, sells for more than Anker, almost regardless of performance or features)
3. Craftsmanship and/or aesthetics. Beats were a fashion item and cost 2-3x the direct competition in terms of sound. Boutique headphones like ZMF or Grado command a premium because of the materials, look, and build quality.
4. Actual performance / sound quality
5. Warranty / customer service
6. Build quality / durability

Any given person will probably rate these in a different order. At ASR we consider #4 as the most important. However, based on my past experience, if I were putting out a new headphone, I would "draft pick" these items in this order to maximize my chances of success on the market. You need to check the first 3 boxes before people will bother to listen to your headphones in the first place.

 

[afinepoint]

If you can't spend a million you might as well just listen to the radio in your car, LOL.

I'm sure the Gates and Bezos of the world believe that. Heck they would just buy the company.