Beats actually make sense for how most people use headphones

[Oyeve]

I still rock my 28 year old Sony MDR-V6. Absolutely great.

 

[sweenish]

If the Corolla has a style or other means that they are wanting then who are you exactly to tell them what they should or should not buy? Your premise is irrelevant just like I initially said. It's only relevant if you control their money and their want's or desires. Performance and price is only relevant if that's all you are after. Everyone has at least one item in their house that they spent way more than they could have for the performance, comfort or whatever.

Ever owned a pair of Nike's or any other such brand in your entire life? Plenty of evidence proves that cheap brands offer the same durability and comfort for much less. Maybe you had a pair of Reebok pumps back in the day or owned a $50 cotton shirt from the mall. It's no different and hopefully you never owned such and are not a hypocrite but that's still your own propagative and it's your money.

You're right that it's not my money. With that said, there's nothing sadder than watching someone piss it away.

I don't get on peoples' cases for buying a Kia or a Corvette, as long as they did their homework and know what they're getting. Price alone isn't the issue. Neither is quality.

You might call me a hypocrite for owning and enjoying Nike shoes (to my "credit," I've not paid more than $65 for a pair of shoes in years; so it's not as if I'm buying top priced gear), but I've tried cheaper brands in the past. Contrary to what you say, they've either fallen apart or weren't nearly as comfortable to me. In other words, I got what I paid for. Same with vacuums, PC parts, and cell phones. I've been on all sides of the purchase spectrum enough times to know that you get what you pay for, and that there's a sweet spot.

If I ever spend money on a higher tier item, I've done my homework. I can guarantee that almost no one that owns beats has done that. Otherwise they would not have bought beats. The performance/price simply isn't there.

My beef isn't actually with beats as a brand or product, it's with stupidity. At the same price or cheaper than beats, there are headphones far more deserving of acclaim and recognition. If we were to look at car sales broken down by price, I don't think the Corolla would be a top seller in the brackets where Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, et al. reside. The market did what it should, and cars are priced appropriately for the features you get. beats is 100% relying on consumer ignorance, stupidity and groupthink to hold their position. They do not belong in their current price brackets, and it's been shown to be true time and time again.

Priced appropriately, beats could be a de facto recommend. They are not, however, priced appropriately. Every beats purchase tells them and their competition that actual quality doesn't matter. We are allowing them sell us on overpriced, under-performing hardware.

So, it's not my money. I can't tell you what to do with it. I can think you're an idiot when you piss it away and disillusion yourself into believing you're getting your money's worth. This being a beats topic, I focus my stupidity hating on beats and the people buying them.

At least beats do sound better than the baked in Apple earbuds that used to be all the rage. Makes the sheep all the easier to identify since their branding is so much larger.

 

[magomago]

The difference between over ear and on ear is over ear has crappy highs while the on ear has crappy mid bass.

I don't know, both of their highs are pretty crappy if you ask me.

Looking at your original chart, it seems like its a cluster fuck above 1Khz. Even at high frequencies the other guys aren't doing too hot either.

Beats seems to have real weakness at low frequencies <20Hz, but above that it isn't too bad.

Unless there is some horrid phase shift at certain frequencies bands, this isn't looking too bad for Beats.

edit: FYI I don't know about how bad is bad for audio. I'm just looking at it purely from the perspective of a frequency analysis, and using the 'Beats' curve as a baseline of what is allegedly crappy because everyone here is trashing it. On that basis, beats doesn't look too bad.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There is a difference between hearing things clearly and hearing everything muddied together with no clarity. Beats are simply not as clear as other options. This doesn't always show up on frequency response charts.

One of the reasons head-fi is a respected site for user reviews is there are professional audio engineers with trained ears who can tell the differences between different headphones who post there.

 

[thedosbox]

Wow, so given the numerous QC issues and the notorious bad rep that Beats has in the audiophile circles, why did Apple purchase them?

Nobody really knows, but there are hints it might be for the streaming music service:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/0...potify-earpods-in-first-post-apple-interview/

Both executives also emphasized the importance of the Beats Music streaming service to Apple's music business, noting that digital sales in the Apple Store weren't "going away" but that digital download growth has "leveled off."

Priced appropriately, beats could be a de facto recommend. They are not, however, priced appropriately. Every beats purchase tells them and their competition that actual quality doesn't matter. We are allowing them sell us on overpriced, under-performing hardware.

Remember when everyone used to badmouth Monster for selling overpriced audio gear?