Fluffy
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2019
- Messages
- 856
- Likes
- 1,425
I don't think the aspiration to flatness apply to headphones as much as other things, simply because it is almost impossible to create one that would be truly flat – again, because of the individualistic Head-related transfer function. And target curves like Harman's is only a suggestion based on statistical preferences – not a rigid physical guideline for how to build headphones. You can make a headphone that is flatter, but not the flattest – and either way, not everybody would respond to it in the same way.
So what's left is making a headphone that tries to compromise the least while sounding as best it can. And by the way, comfort and ergonomics are also very important. There are a lot of tradeoffs to be made, and getting a headphone that ticks all the boxes requires research and development.
Of course, marketing is a big part of pricing, no doubt about it. I'm sure all headphones in the 1000$+ range cost tenth of their price in materials and labor. The thing is, companies that invest into research to produce headphones that sound good, are comfortable, and made out of quality materials – are the ones that will charge extra for it.
It's also important to realize that a lot of headphones by hifi brands that exist in the 300-600$ range are actually fucked up versions of their flagship headphones. Meaning, it's not that the Utopia is actually worth 4000$ and the Elear 800$, they probably have very similar cost to produce. It's that the Elear is intentionally sound just good enough so you'll want it, but badly enough so that you'll want more to buy the Utopia that is made without built-in flaws. The same is true for most of Hifiman and Audeze cans in my opinion.
So the price point of diminishing returns should take these factors into consideration, whether we like it or not. Yes, it probably is possible to create 300$ headphones that reaches all of our high-end goals – but no one is incentivized to make them.
So what's left is making a headphone that tries to compromise the least while sounding as best it can. And by the way, comfort and ergonomics are also very important. There are a lot of tradeoffs to be made, and getting a headphone that ticks all the boxes requires research and development.
Of course, marketing is a big part of pricing, no doubt about it. I'm sure all headphones in the 1000$+ range cost tenth of their price in materials and labor. The thing is, companies that invest into research to produce headphones that sound good, are comfortable, and made out of quality materials – are the ones that will charge extra for it.
It's also important to realize that a lot of headphones by hifi brands that exist in the 300-600$ range are actually fucked up versions of their flagship headphones. Meaning, it's not that the Utopia is actually worth 4000$ and the Elear 800$, they probably have very similar cost to produce. It's that the Elear is intentionally sound just good enough so you'll want it, but badly enough so that you'll want more to buy the Utopia that is made without built-in flaws. The same is true for most of Hifiman and Audeze cans in my opinion.
So the price point of diminishing returns should take these factors into consideration, whether we like it or not. Yes, it probably is possible to create 300$ headphones that reaches all of our high-end goals – but no one is incentivized to make them.
