3 ms·

Recently, thanks to comments on Hacker News, I've learned to think about where money is being made. In this situation, there are companies competing for busine

by rikkus 11y ago

Recently, thanks to comments on Hacker News, I've learned to think about where money is being made. In this situation, there are companies competing for business in the studio market, where equipment needs to be functional (easy to move, install, plug stuff into, etc.), not alter the audio signal in a way which is undesirable and - generally - be worth the money in terms of real benefit. The home market is entirely different. Across the price range, (most) customers care about looks, how it alters the sound of the music / films they care about to match their personal preference and - less often - be worth the money in terms of audio quality and practicality. There's also trendiness, which is much more of a factor in this market. A 'classic' example (sorry to use that phrase, especially for such a recent phenomenon) is Beats Audio headphones. They are attractive for the home market because people like how they look (including that they're trendy), they make music sound 'good' (I haven't heard them, but I've been told they enhance the bass but otherwise are lacklustre), and are (based on the other factors) not worth the money in terms of audio quality or practicality. Just because the equipment is made from the same basic components (in fact, much may be made from the same components) doesn't mean that there aren't two separate markets here. They can't be treated as one because the customers are entirely different. Or maybe they can and you should start a company selling to both!

huuu 11y ago
I needed a new headphone so I read a lot of reviews. It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern. I bought an Audio Technica ATH-M40x. These are monitor headphones for studio work. That's why they sound great but cost less than audiophile headphones. So I must agree with you and our parent.
- golergka 11y ago
  > It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern. Why do you think it's the main concern? I don't think so. I, personally, am a DJ and music producer, and I, personally, care about sound quality. I also think that after some time invested in listening to stuff on a variety of sound systems I can distinguish between good and bad sound. But this is just me. I'm not a typical headphone buyer. My wife doesn't hear any real difference between iPhone default headphones and my AKGs, and even when she does, she doesn't really care. However, aesthetics are important to people. Hell, they are important to me too! I love my pair of AKGs which sound pretty good and are amazingly cost-effecient, however, THEY ARE UGLY. And Beats are not. And if I wasn't that into sound quality, I would certainly buy Beats.
golergka 11y ago
Your distinction works with Beats example (which are a great product for it's audience, by the way). But it doesn't really explain the HiFi speakers niche: Beats are not marketed at audiophiles, they are marketed at the market that doesn't care about flac files or good cables, as HiFi buyers do. Don't people who buy HiFi speakers and amps want to recreate the "original" sound? Why then they don't just buy the same stuff that the audio engineer had when he did the track? Also, about equipment being functional — I don't see how the requirement of easy installation and movement is more relevant for studio monitor speakers than HiFi speakers. Both are plugged in and put in their place once for a long time (unlike a mobile sound system) and are expected to be moved only when the whole room (studio or your living room) will move.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  No they don't. Why, I never really understood. I used to read a lot of studio audio magazines and reviewers would often say "these speakers are great studio speakers, but I would never use them at home" Part of the explanation, I suppose, is that an album is supposed to sound as good as possible on $5 speakers and $5000, so the studio sound might not be the "optimal" sound
  - rikkus 11y ago
    I haven't paid much attention to the way studios work recently, but people used to record using flat response headphones (which make music sound, well, flat - great for hearing everything but not pleasant for music) and mix using Yamaha NS10 speakers, which were considered to be a good simulation of the average (slightly rubbish) kit that listeners might have. If people say 'these are great studio speakers but I would never use them at home', perhaps they're using speakers designed to have a flat response.
- radiowave 11y ago
  On the one hand, the difference can be explained like this: sound engineers want to hear the defects in the source material, home listeners don't. On the other hand, as a home listener, if you choose a pair of speakers that transform the sound in some way which appears to sound better, how can you be confident that everything you'll ever listen to on them will actually suite this "betterness" that the speakers provide? On the functional side, there's certainly not as many factors at play with speakers as with headphones, but there are a few: Smaller studio speakers sometimes are expected to be transported, and their surface finish being scuff-resistant is more important than the polished oak finish or whatever that the home listener market might want. Another case is that broadcasters are often very concerned with the support lifetime of the speakers, it's not unheard of for replacement drivers to still be available 20 years after purchase, for example.

by rikkus 11y ago

huuu 11y ago

I needed a new headphone so I read a lot of reviews. It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern. I bought an Audio Technica ATH-M40x. These are monitor headphones for studio work. That's why they sound great but cost less than audiophile headphones. So I must agree with you and our parent.

golergka 11y ago
> It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern. Why do you think it's the main concern? I don't think so. I, personally, am a DJ and music producer, and I, personally, care about sound quality. I also think that after some time invested in listening to stuff on a variety of sound systems I can distinguish between good and bad sound. But this is just me. I'm not a typical headphone buyer. My wife doesn't hear any real difference between iPhone default headphones and my AKGs, and even when she does, she doesn't really care. However, aesthetics are important to people. Hell, they are important to me too! I love my pair of AKGs which sound pretty good and are amazingly cost-effecient, however, THEY ARE UGLY. And Beats are not. And if I wasn't that into sound quality, I would certainly buy Beats.

golergka 11y ago

Your distinction works with Beats example (which are a great product for it's audience, by the way). But it doesn't really explain the HiFi speakers niche: Beats are not marketed at audiophiles, they are marketed at the market that doesn't care about flac files or good cables, as HiFi buyers do. Don't people who buy HiFi speakers and amps want to recreate the "original" sound? Why then they don't just buy the same stuff that the audio engineer had when he did the track? Also, about equipment being functional — I don't see how the requirement of easy installation and movement is more relevant for studio monitor speakers than HiFi speakers. Both are plugged in and put in their place once for a long time (unlike a mobile sound system) and are expected to be moved only when the whole room (studio or your living room) will move.

wodenokoto 11y ago
No they don't. Why, I never really understood. I used to read a lot of studio audio magazines and reviewers would often say "these speakers are great studio speakers, but I would never use them at home" Part of the explanation, I suppose, is that an album is supposed to sound as good as possible on $5 speakers and $5000, so the studio sound might not be the "optimal" sound
- rikkus 11y ago
  I haven't paid much attention to the way studios work recently, but people used to record using flat response headphones (which make music sound, well, flat - great for hearing everything but not pleasant for music) and mix using Yamaha NS10 speakers, which were considered to be a good simulation of the average (slightly rubbish) kit that listeners might have. If people say 'these are great studio speakers but I would never use them at home', perhaps they're using speakers designed to have a flat response.
radiowave 11y ago
On the one hand, the difference can be explained like this: sound engineers want to hear the defects in the source material, home listeners don't. On the other hand, as a home listener, if you choose a pair of speakers that transform the sound in some way which appears to sound better, how can you be confident that everything you'll ever listen to on them will actually suite this "betterness" that the speakers provide? On the functional side, there's certainly not as many factors at play with speakers as with headphones, but there are a few: Smaller studio speakers sometimes are expected to be transported, and their surface finish being scuff-resistant is more important than the polished oak finish or whatever that the home listener market might want. Another case is that broadcasters are often very concerned with the support lifetime of the speakers, it's not unheard of for replacement drivers to still be available 20 years after purchase, for example.