3 ms·
Technically, they aren't lying about the product here. The foam in the 555 model degrades the performance, compared to the 595. It is a lower performing product
by uxp 16y ago
Technically, they aren't lying about the product here. The foam in the 555 model degrades the performance, compared to the 595. It is a lower performing product, and it's pricetag reflects that.
I do, however, find it ironic that the $199 555 model physically contains more "parts" and more manufacturing costs than the $349 595 model.
Curious if anyone has thought about the correlation between shareware/trialware software and these headphones, being that HN readers are generally more software than hardware people. I mean, the only difference between my 30 day trial of Something.app and the unlimited version is a 32 character string, and depending on my current morality level, I could find any number of those strings floating around the internet.
- stcredzero 16y agoYes, but trialware publishers are up-front about this difference. Sennheiser was not.
- thijsc 16y agoWhy are they required to be up-front about this?
- billybob 16y ago> I do, however, find it ironic that the $199 555 model physically contains more "parts" and more manufacturing costs than the $349 595 model. That's true, but imagine what they could do differently. They could have a whole separate assembly line to make the cheaper headphones out of different material, for example. But ironically, this might actually drive up the cost of both headphones, since they'd lose the economies of scale that they have now. I agree that it seems wrong to intentionally make your headphones worse, but it might be the most cost-effective way of producing a cheaper set, given that you're already making the expensive model.