why are headphones so expensive? There's no new technology in them. These headphones are considered "top of the line" and still cost 400$ yet they were released in 1997. They are made of cheap plastic and don't use any new technology. Same thing for amp/dacs, old technology yet they can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Why do audiocucks still buy this crap?
>>54510394
>why are headphones so expensive?
Because people will buy it at those crazy prices.
>Why do audiocucks still buy this crap?
Dunno
Not OP but what would value the HD600 and AKG 702 prices at?
>>54510394
I'm sure you could fish out more replies from the headphone thread.
>why are headphones so expensive?
Because they can be. Simple business.
>These headphones are considered "top of the line" and still cost 400$ yet they were released in 1997. They are made of cheap plastic and don't use any new technology.
I don't think you understand economics. I would also question your knowledge of what goes into a product, but we'll leave that alone for now.
>Same thing for amp/dacs, old technology yet they can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
The prices start for the cheap ones integrated into modern mobos and smartphones, which are good enough for a great number of load cases.
>Why do audiocucks still buy this crap?
Because they can. You buy it just as much for issues like obsession over trivialities of sound and visual aesthetic.
Those are mastering-grade headphones. That's also a metal frame. They cut the bass in favor of incredibly detailed mids and highs.
>>54510394
Headphones are extremely simple, that means they don't get cheaper to produce since the production methods have been around forever and don't improve much. Things don't magically get cheaper because they're old retard.
Also, a simple design doesn't mean "easy" or "low quality". Ball bearings have been around for 200 years without fundamental changes, yet you can still buy a 1$ one from china or a 250$ industrial grade one from SKF. There's a market for both because the difference in quality is so huge despite basically being the same thing
>>54510394
They are mid-tier. Top of the line is HD800.
>>54510394
special magnets are expensive
r&d is expensive
sennheiser discluded, chasis materials are expensive
>>54510394
Usually marketing/branding
If you want good shit for cheep, check out massdrop.
They got some hi-fimans up right now down from $300 to $99.
Otherwise, usually it's marketing, or just because they can, like those "audio rocks" you put on top of your speaker wire that "increase quality" or some shit, scientists soldered a wire hanger to a speaker, and then used high end overpriced wire, they couldn't tell a difference.
>>54510394
Are those neutral? Can an amateur wannabe Trance producer like me use them as monitors?
>>54510394
don't shit on the HD600
I used to be on the same boat about "overpaying" for headphones. they really do sound fucking great and the build quality is better than a lot of my non-plastic gadgets.
>>54514087
There has never been a neutral headphone.
All headphones' frequency response would be considered terrible if they were any other source component.
Anyways, the HRTF is still something that we can't agree on so there's not really anything we can say is netural. But no headphone reliably follows any across 20-20khz
I'd say for mixing use the industry standards, because most people seem to think they sound good.
>>54514145
You are trip bait.png
>>54510394
>They are made of cheap plastic
Aluminium*
>>54510394
Why are CPUs so expensive? A i7-6700K pretty much costs just as much to produce as a Celeron of the same node. The difference, if there is any, is tiny compared to the eventual price difference. The same goes with headphones. They are expensive to make money. The prices are adjusted to get the most profit with given demand.
>>54513620
Only real answer in this thread. Headphones are mechanical, and thus unaffected by improvements in digital technology.
>>54514249
the difference is a shitload of RND goes into making new CPUs, while headphones have had the same technology for years. Ex: the hd600 are still considered some of the best headphones on the market but they are almost 20 years old. Yet they still charge 400$
>>54514268
>thinking bait is the real answers
Get your anal glans checked senpai.
>>54514305
Are you mentally ok right now?
>>54514299
Well, headphone manufacturers are fucking cunts. How dare they make money when they have the chance.
Seriously though, that's just how it works. I swear, if AKG suddenly started to go all cheap, they'd sell less in the long run.
>>54514335
>>54514160
There is literally nothing wrong with what I said. There are no headphones that are within tolerance to any hrtf across the whole spectrum
>>54514383
get me a glass of water trippy.
>>54510394
Don't worry OP, China will save us from the audiocucks.
>>54510394
Why would you even want those
>>54514392
He's right. Every headphone has more or less random deviations from a flat response to make up for whatever happens when sound hits your head + ears. Perfectly flat headphones usually sound like shit, way too much treble.
>>54514434
Wanna fuck my dead horse?
![2016_Radiohead_Press_060516.article_x4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GksFwCW.jpg "2016_Radiohead_Press_060516.article_x4[1].jpg")
SR325e or Fidelio X2 ?
HE-400s are too expensive where I'm from and these two don't need amplification (I have a USB audio interface that functions as a DAC/amp)
Sennheiser should really upgrade hd600 and 650.
I prefer hd598 to those because much better soundstage.
>>54514483
Fidelio X2
Don't ever think about buying Grado.
