JVC HP-DX1000 - $1,000 wooden headphones

Did we miss the memo announcing that this is wooden gear week? Must've, since we've seen the wood-cased iPod, the Siemens woody phone, and now JVC's ridiculously expensive wooden HP-DX1000 headphones. While JVC is quick to point out that this makes sense, since wood has great resonating capabilities and has been used in speakers for decades, we've gotta be even quicker to note that we really think a thin veneer isn't going to make a whole lot of difference in sound quality. But if you really, really need to complete that dead tree look, go for it; you've got nothing to lose but about a grand.

[Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

It's amazing the things (like a thin wood veneer) that can make *huge* differences in sound quality. I'm blown away by the difference in audio quality I've found by investing in a pair of Grado SR-80s (I was listening to a pair of $19 Aiwas before), and those are just about the *lowest* end of the Grado line (SR-60s are a step lower). Grado RS-1s use mahogany in their design, and from what I've read they're amazing.

[falling whale number 42 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Guess you guys don't know what veneer is, because it is obvious that these phones are milled from a solid block. But hey, why let ignorance get in the way of reporting?

[natiahs is a numbnut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

It is clear that the wannabe tech reporter/blogger who penned this idiotic sarcasm never ever heard to a wooden headphone.

I have owned Grado RS-1 headphones for nearly a year, and their mahogany chambers impart them sonic qualities hard to emulate even using space-age composite materials. The best headphones ever made - Sennheiser Orpheus, and Sony MDR-R10 have wooden chambers. Both these headphones have been discontinued, which is a travesty, and they command a premium in the audiophile market. Even used, they command a price tag of $3000-4000.

I had the privilege of listening to these marvelous headphones, and if there was ever audio nirvana, you'd experience it with these wooden headphones.

So, to sum it up, wood has been and will continue to be used in high-end audio equipment - even headphones - and unless you've had a first hand experience to write about, it'd be better to shut that sarcastic pie hole instead of spouting BS about something you clearly have no idea about.

[DucSloerie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Didn't Sony have these a long time ago for a much larger price tag ??

[Casual Observer @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Wow, vitriolic hatred from the overpriced wooden headphone crowd.
I'd hate to run into you guys in a dork, er dark alley.

[Danny @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Oh snap!

[Rob @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Why are companies still making headphones with seperate wires into each ear? One streamlined wire makes more sense, especially for a stick

[Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

#5: why? Don't want to listen to music you can hear well? Willful ignorance is the worst kind.

[natiahs is a numbnut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

@ #5:

Who's talking? I hope not an iPod junkie with his girly-white 10cents earbuds !!

You cannot put a price on sound quality. I'll give you a mahogany wood block, and let's see you make a better sounding headphone for less price. You could really be a rich man, if you could pull it off. When you have all the iPod suckers buying better quality headphones, then may be JVC, Sony and Sennheiser will bring the prices down.

[Obscura @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

If you are considering wooden headphones please give the Grado RS-1 a listen. I'm confident that you are going to like what you hear.
(and they fold flat so you can take'em to work)

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

"I'd hate to run into you guys in a dork, er dark alley."

Where does anyone reading Engadget get off calling anyone else a dork?

Seriously, who's kidding who?

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Jeeze... you people sound like cigar snobs talking about how a particular tobacco has "subtle hints of chocolate mixed with a smooth undertone of tomato bisque" or some other crap like that.

To those of you who think people are throwing money away on stuff like this, let them spend.. they'll buy their green sharpies and hyper-expensive speaker wire regardless if you want them to or not. I'm somewhat convinced that people who bitch, moan and carry on about people who spend extravagantly don't have the capacity to do so themselves and wish they did. There would be NO market for anything like this if there weren't people to buy it.

To you "audiophiles", some people just don't NEED amazing sonic quality. I can appreciate quality equipment but in the end, my ability to distinguish the difference in a $200 speaker and a $2000 speaker is pretty much zero. I have a Sennheiser PMX-40 connected to my iPod to entertain me while I mow the lawn, maybe I'll glue some wood to it? :)

[Shane @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

to #11: *applauds*

[GMack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Nobody should mock audiophiles, you should encourage them. Because of them and their willingness to shell out HUGE amounts of money for "perceived" (yes, perceived, since they can't seem to distinguish any of these things in proper double-blind studies) differences in sound quality, equipement manufacturers make a huge margin on these things and cut the margin on their other items, allowing a normal person who enjoys good audio to buy great equipment at a good price.

[Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Just want to note, I don't know about the upper echelons of audiophilia; like I mentioned, I only have the SR-80s, and most of my music is encoded at 96-192kbps. However, I have to note, I can certainly hear the difference between anything encoded lower (and can hear effects in some of what I have encoded now), and I can also certainly hear the difference between the SR-80s and the Aiwas I used to use. It's a huge difference, too.

However, I get the impression that, once you get into the truly upper echelons, I wonder if you don't diminishing returns. For instance, how much difference between the SR-80s and the SR-125s? Enough difference to justify the price? I'd have to hear to find out.

But the idea of perception is moot; the entire *world* is "perceived". Sound quality is as subjective as video quality. I realize that doesn't mean standards don't exist (I'm legally blind in one eye, but just because I don't have any depth perception doesn't mean there's no third dimension, does it?), but sound quality is a particularly subjective beast, and what sounds better to one person may not to another. But for a person who perceives a difference, a difference exists, and that's all that counts, regardless of all the double-blind studies you want to throw up.

[GMack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

#16 - Not true. Let's say I do a double-blind study and ask a participant to choose which audio is better and they give me their choice, saying one is much clearer, richer, etc.... Then I reveal to them that the audio for both choices was exactly the same.

That is a perceived difference. There IS no difference, but the audiophile perceives one that is not there, simply because of bias, prior knowledge, etc....

So it is not a simple case of choice. It is truely a false perception, or a case of perceiving something that is not there.

[of_the_apes @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

i've had the pleasure of trying on a similar pair from sony a few years ago and if money were no object I would have bought them on the spot. regardless of what you fools, think(since you probably haven't actually tried on a pair) wood is good, especially when sound reproduction is concerned. not only is it amazing at reducing resonance effects but I heard things through those headphones I've only heard when played through speakers that are at least as much as the JVC headphones will set you back. I dare say they were much better than the Magnepan MG 3.6 + sub setup I almost bought instead of taking a two month long European vacation(to give you some understanding about how much money speakers can set you back). I still wish I could have had both, but the vacation was definitely money better spent.

these are a heck of a lot more affordable, and considering how much I've grown to hate the speakers and headphones I currently own and the noise considerations I have to deal with, I would seriously consider buying these as a total replacement. call me foolish, but I bet these are worth every penny. now to find a pair to try out and maybe sign the credit card receipt.

seriously...don't knock this as hipster bullshit until you've sat with them on for an hour. if you still can't notice a huge difference, you've been listening to those crappy iPod earbuds for too long and your brain has rotted out completely.

[Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

17: this is a very difficult case to make. I understand your point about there not having been a difference between the samples being listened to, but consider the analogy of, say, a medical study in which patients are given either a certain medication or a placebo. In just about every study I've ever heard of, placebos cause some effect (called, simply enough, the placebo effect). One cannot say that sugar cures cancer, or relieves headache, or anything like that, but taking a placebo *does,* in many instances, produce a result. Yes, the music/sound used might be the same, but what is *heard* is not.

In addition, we don't really completely understand how the brain works, and may never. So the way the brain processes any given stimulation, and anything that might *influence* the way the brain processes stimulation (i.e., bias, etc.), determines how the stimulation is perceived.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, rather that perhaps the data pool and information is yet incomplete, and may forever be.

What matters most, of course, is whether one is happy with what one hears. Some people are perfectly content with their iPod headphones, whereas others prefer the Shures.

[GMack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

#19

True, the placebo effect is very real. I think what bothers most people about audiophiles is their dogged determination to prove they are better/more sophisticated than us "unknowing lemmings". Basically, they are snogs and don't understand that other people value things differently.

You are right, more power to you if you want to spend $1,000 a foot on speaker wire. But don't try to convince me my speaker wire sounds like crap and I just can't tell the difference.

Ever hear that the Emperior is not wearing clothes? :)

If any audiophile really wants to debate these points, go to the forums on www.randi.org and start a thread in the appropriate board. You will soon meet "jj". "JJ" is an audiophiles worst nightmare - a PHD that used to work at Bell Labs. And he is ruthless about dubious audio claims, so it is fun to watch. :)

[raaj @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

@ #17:

The flaw in your argument is that there is no universally accepted standard of doing a double-blind test, and there is no universally accepted rate at which the samples need to be switched. Do a search on the internet about double-blind audio tests, and I'd promise you you'd get a lot more varied opinions than you thought there could be.

Contact me through email, and I'll set you up to audition some truly high-end audio equipment in your area. After that hearing session I'll bet you'd think that the audible difference in quality is not all in your mind. There is a preference to a particular sound, which cannot be argued, but there can absolutely be no two ways about frequency response of the reproduced sound from a piece of audio equipment. The only difference is in how close your equipment reproduces the audio compared to the original recording.

[Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

19: That sounds like an interesting site, and I'm looking forward to checking it out. Thanks for mentioning it.

I understand your disliking that someone would tell you you should like something more. I don't like it, either. I think that's part of the problem I have with the whole iPod thing; the ubiquity and proselytization (sp?) just gets to me. As for me, like I said, I only recently (within the past few months) bought a pair of SR80s. I'm certainly no audiophile; I just love music, and noticed a difference between them and my old headphones. Everyone I've shown them to has agreed that they sound great.

I don't think I'd ever be able to justify spending more than, say, a couple hundred bucks on a pair of headphones, though, and even *that* would be pushing it.

Anyway, thanks again for the link.

And Raaj, I'm *definitely* contacting you for some audio experimentation; expect an e-mail soon.

[BMan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Why must any mention of expensive stereo equipment bring on arguments of whether it is worth it or not? Who cares! This is a capitalist society, let the buyer decide.

[GMack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

raaj:

My expertise is not in the audio realm (I am an EE, but work in robotic controls), so I cannot argue the point of a true double-blind audio test (although I have read the arguments for and against.)

But I have experience in designing and carrying out double-blind tests for general claims (I was an administrator on the forementioned website and active in the local skeptics society) and it is hard to believe it can't be done for audio. But I will leave that to the experts (on both sides) to argue.

The one fact we can all agree on is this: Buy what you want. It is your money and your enjoyment. You guys would probably all crap yourselves if you knew how much I spent on golfing and golf equipement per year. We all have our one thing. But just keep in mind that different people have different values.

And Raaj, I am half deaf in one ear from an industrial accident, so I wouldn't be a good person to do any audio tests on. :)

[threEchelon @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Sennheiser makes some kick-ass headphones.

[raaj @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

@ #24:

I didn't mean to appear to scoff at non-audiophiles, but just wanted to clarify that double-blind tests are very hard to administer to produce consistent results in the audio realm, as there is always a problem with the way human brain's short term memory makes you unable to perceive genuine differnces in audio cues if the samples are switched too fast. And then there is the plain and simple ear fatigue after a while of listening (similar to the way your ability to accurately distinguish between smells is diminished the more smells you try in a short duration).

There is no good/bad sounding audio equipment - some equipment reproduce the sound more accurately and close to the real source than others. Accuracy is worth different things to different people. Dismissing some thing as a crazy fad before really trying it is wrong. That's what the author of this article did, and that is why he deserved to be cream pied.

[Brett @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Wood is the new silver. Pass the word on

Brett