Sennheiser MX-300 Headphones

Gazzadfc

There was a post a while back saying you can get the above headphones for £4.00 + £1.50 p&p but they where "OEM", they are now currently out of stock.

The cheapest currently available brand new is from richer sounds and cost £6.99 with free delivery, everywhere else you are looking at is £12 - £13 also including delivery.

Phonix

No idea where this information is but,

if the headphones only cost £6.99 they can't be very good.

mcwarre

Phonix wrote:

No idea where this information is but,

if the headphones only cost £6.99 they can't be very good.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Does this mean that anything cheap/free is no good?

Following your logic:

For PC's Zonealarm & AVG are therefore rubbish!

0% credit card deals are rubbish

Etc etc..................

Paracaine

Phonix wrote:

No idea where this information is but,

if the headphones only cost £6.99 they can't be very good.

That's a rather uninteligent thing to say :rolleyes:

charlotte3

Hi! Just click here.

Bought a set of these for my son, he says they're great!

:j

sabelu

Bought them for £5.99 from Play.com

TheRegular

HI Gazzadfc,

If you want real quality the best thing to do is to get a sony branded pair of headphones, you can never go wrong with Sony

Good Luck!

Phonix

Originally Posted by Phonix
No idea where this information is but,

if the headphones only cost £6.99 they can't be very good.



How do you come to that conclusion?

Does this mean that anything cheap/free is no good?

Following your logic:

For PC's Zonealarm & AVG are therefore rubbish!

0% credit card deals are rubbish

Etc etc..................

.....

To make it very clear to you, a good pair of headphones don't cost £6.99 brand new. Yes they will function as a pair of headphones but you will need to spend at least £50 if you want a decent pair, and £30 if you get a good deal and are on a budget. To be honest some headphones are hard to get bleow £90. Giving these things away is a false economy, 0% credit card deals are not. This is easy to understand.

Seeing as I use linux, (this is free and imo 1000x better than windows) but by your logic...... I use it because it's rubbish.

Originally Posted by Phonix
No idea where this information is but,

if the headphones only cost £6.99 they can't be very good.



That's a rather uninteligent thing to say

Just thought I'd reitterate this to you incase you it didn't get it the first time.

If the headphones only cost £6.99 they can't be very good.

markftmuk

yes but they ARE good, and cheap, theres always better, but they are still good.

Phonix

Sure I wasn't disputing that they're good headphones for the price.

I did make the mistake in thinking that these were full sized too.

mcwarre

Phonix wrote:

.....

To make it very clear to you, a good pair of headphones don't cost £6.99 brand new.

Says who? Are you qualified to pass judgement on the standard of a piece of electrical equipment? (before you start, I am; I am a Chartered Engineer ). Are they on special offer? Does a pair of £50 headphones cost that much to make? No. Its only the fact that we are prepared to pay £50 for them which makes them 'worth' £50. The headphones in question are Sennheiser; they do not make rubbish headphones (no, not even at this price).

This site is about saving money; not a discussion on the quality of a pair of headphones. As such, the OP was correct in highlighting a relatively cheap price for these headphones.

Phonix wrote:

.....
Yes they will function as a pair of headphones but you will need to spend at least £50 if you want a decent pair, and £30 if you get a good deal and are on a budget. To be honest some headphones are hard to get bleow (sic) £90.

Define decent? 18-20K response with a SNR of 122dB @ 1K seems a not bad response for this type of earphone. I think if you are on a budget that £6.99 is better than £30

Phonix wrote:

.....Seeing as I use linux, (this is free and imo 1000x better than windows) but by your logic...... I use it because it's rubbish.

I think that you should re-read my post. I state, quite clearly, that even if it is free or cheap doesn't mean it is rubbish; I was quoting an example based on your logic, not mine.

Phonix wrote:

.....Just thought I'd reitterate this to you incase you it didn't get it the first time.

Why would you need to do that? You surely meant iterate (repeat or state repeatedly), rather than reiterate (note the one 't'). By repeating something it doesn't make it right or any clearer. Perhaps it makes a naive viewpoint even more so.

Here ends the lesson