• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Beats actually make sense for how most people use headphones

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mnewsham said:
Too bad they have crappy treble. I would still prefer the HD600s or AKG K7xx series over the Momentums. But at least the momentums care a bit more about overall sound quality than beats. A step in the right direction one might say.

ph9QA47.jpg
Click to expand...

They have two models. Do they use the same drivers and have the same specs? I only know of the on ears which is what I have. I don't use them at home, I have others for that role. They are fine for long trips though. I also EQ them on my phone and run a portable amp which I am sure most people do not do. They aren't as clear as my Sony MDR-7520s or even my Sennheiser PC360s that I use for gaming that's for certain. They have a different usage though.
 
Last edited:
cmdrdredd said:
They have two models. Do they use the same drivers and have the same specs? I only know of the on ears which is what I have. I don't use them at home, I have others for that role. They are fine for long trips though. I also EQ them on my phone and run a portable amp which I am sure most people do not do. They aren't as clear as my Sony MDR-7520s or even my Sennheiser PC360s that I use for gaming that's for certain. They have a different usage though.
Click to expand...

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

i75QKD5.jpg
 
Ok I see. I was looking for something besides IEMs for travel and on Head-Fi a lot of people recommended the momentum so I gave them a listen locally and decided they were pretty nice and sounded good. They are small enough and aren't that big to me. I don't think I could stand wearing my Sony cans for that long because they are just heavier.
 
DLeRium said:
This is very true. I don't think it was Apple's fault necessarily for crappy earbuds. People should've known better. And to just crank the volume up so their music leaks all over the public while using earbuds is pretty bad too.

Overall I think if people embrace Beats, we'll be one level up from crappy audio quality of Apple earbuds, but it's still far from what is considered good. That's fine though. I'll let the general public continue using their crap while I use my Westone W40s.
Click to expand...

If the difference between Beats Solo's and Westone W40s, or "good ones" is $400, then I and many others will be satisfied with the Solos. I'm pretty sure 99% of the population cannot hear the lost/removed information from an .mp3 file. For the 1% with perfect pitch and great hearing, they're free to pick up $500 head phones and be perfectly satisfied.

I've played with a lot of different headphones and my Solo's sound pretty clean. If that means my hearing is only good enough to be satisfied with Beats, or $80 Shure's, or $100 Klipsch, or something, then so be it.

It seems rather ridiculous to say stuff like "those $199 headphones are garbage. If you really want to hear your music, buy these $700 headphones". You always get what you paid for, right? I expect $700 headphones to sound drastically better than $200 headphones, but if I can't tell the difference, that $500 delta is pure waste.

In my case, I was always satisfied with $20 skullcandy earbuds. I traveled with some Shure over the ear headphones. One day, the in-ear earbuds were just killing me, and thanks to my company discount, I bought a pair of Beats Solos (partly because I could walk in to the store and walk out with them in 5 minutes. Sure, I could have bought cheaper options, but I didn't want to wait for processing and shipping). I'm certainly no "audiophile", but I like my music to sound clean and crisp and, to me, my music sounds that way through the Solos.
 
Last edited:
tdawg said:
seems rather ridiculous to say stuff like those $199 headphones are garbage. If you really want to hear your music, buy these $700 headphones
Click to expand...
Except with beats it tends to be those $199 headphones could be destroyed by a pair of $100 headphones. No need to spend more than beats to get better than beats quality (though you are perfectly able to do that as well).

You're perfectly fine buying beats, but don't pretend you're getting decent value or that price for performance is anywhere close to acceptable.
 
I've listened to $400 Beats and compared them with Senn HD280s which are cheap for $120 and I would pick the Senns everytime.
 
GrumpyMan said:
I've listened to $400 Beats and compared them with Senn HD280s which are cheap for $120 and I would pick the Senns everytime.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Senn is technology, Beats are a basically a fancy hat.

I get why Apple bought them though. They got tired of iStuff being "for mom and dad."

For a while it was cool because mom and dad are the ones with the money, but now they are facing a lack of excitement (and lines) for non-iPhone products...
 
poofyhairguy said:
Exactly.

Senn is technology, Beats are a basically a fancy hat.

I get why Apple bought them though. They got tired of iStuff being "for mom and dad."

For a while it was cool because mom and dad are the ones with the money, but now they are facing a lack of excitement (and lines) for non-iPhone products...
Click to expand...

Not to mention the iPhone is all but eclipsed in terms of features. Recently I have seen a lot of iPhone converts among those I know.
 
No they don't to the OP.

Is basically like sticking a low end Rolex on your ears a bit, though a Rolex is better built.

Bye.
 
Last edited:
mnewsham said:
Except with beats it tends to be those $199 headphones could be destroyed by a pair of $100 headphones. No need to spend more than beats to get better than beats quality (though you are perfectly able to do that as well).

You're perfectly fine buying beats, but don't pretend you're getting decent value or that price for performance is anywhere close to acceptable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. $199+ for headphones can never be argued to be a good value or something. But headphone performance is subjective, yes? Sure there are stats, but most people can't hear the nuance most people proclaim to hear in expensive headphones.

All I know is that I've been more than happy with the $20 skullcandy earbuds and the quality of my music out of the beats solos. Which is really all that matters, right?

Not that I need to justify anything to people, but for me the requirement for headphones was good sound quality, comfort (my earbuds were causing me pain), compactness/travel-ability, appearance (I have zero desire to wear headphones that are essentially Princess Leia buns), and available to pick up immediately (no shipping or wait time). Those were my drivers.
 
cmdrdredd said:
You're right. I see a ton of people sitting in the coffee shop with their ipad or iphone who look around seeking approval because they use an Apple product. Then they glare at the guy down the way using a Note 3 or Surface Pro 2 as if they are inferior to them. They don't have to say it, it's in their eyes. Yet I know those devices do so much more than any Apple product.

Just the same I see people wearing beats like they have the best headphones in the world. Then I wear my generally ugly Sennheisers and get better sound. To me being functionally superior comes first.
Click to expand...

Project more, please. I don't understand why people on all "sides" of this unending debate don't just use what they have and stop caring about what the other person is using. Edit: this is more to the iPad/Surface/Note issue, but despite Beats being empirically worse, why not just leave them alone?
 
Last edited:
I have a pair of beats solo hd. But at least I've listened to it for quite a while as well as a number of other hp's rather than just join the hate bandwagon. Price is only relevant to what you can or can't afford. If you can't afford to spend more than something is worth or a cheapass then that's limited to you and not anyone else or the product itself.
 
tdawg said:
Agreed. $199+ for headphones can never be argued to be a good value or something. But headphone performance is subjective, yes? Sure there are stats, but most people can't hear the nuance most people proclaim to hear in expensive headphones.

All I know is that I've been more than happy with the $20 skullcandy earbuds and the quality of my music out of the beats solos. Which is really all that matters, right?

Not that I need to justify anything to people, but for me the requirement for headphones was good sound quality, comfort (my earbuds were causing me pain), compactness/travel-ability, appearance (I have zero desire to wear headphones that are essentially Princess Leia buns), and available to pick up immediately (no shipping or wait time). Those were my drivers.
Click to expand...

If you haven't shopped around, being perfectly satisfied with two nearly universally bad brands doesn't really prove anything, does it?

I was also down with my cheapo Skullcandy buds back in the day. Then my sister bought v-moda vibes. I was blown away by the difference. However, issues with my pair led me to Monster Turbines (and before you let the ridiculous cables cloud your judgment, they do make great competitively priced audio gear) and I was again blown away.

From the Skullcandy buds to the vibes, the extra clarity was amazing. I could hear parts of the songs that I didn't know existed. Moving to the Turbines was less revolutionary, but they highlighted how sloppy the vibes were with bass, and overall clarity increased again.

From a pure quality perspective, beats or skullcandy headphones are not the worst things on the market. But beats are probably the worst performance/price brand on the market.

Price is only relevant to what you can or can't afford.
Click to expand...
That's not the argument. The argument is that if you can afford beats, you've thrown your money away on an inferior product at that price. If I can afford a Corvette, should I pay that price for a Corolla and expect Corvette performance?

It amazes me how many people can't get the basic premise of the argument against beats. If they were priced according to their quality against the rest of the market, a lot less people would be hating on them, since they'd be priced where they should be.
 
sweenish said:
That's not the argument. The argument is that if you can afford beats, you've thrown your money away on an inferior product at that price. If I can afford a Corvette, should I pay that price for a Corolla and expect Corvette performance?

It amazes me how many people can't get the basic premise of the argument against beats. If they were priced according to their quality against the rest of the market, a lot less people would be hating on them, since they'd be priced where they should be.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tegeril said:
Project more, please. I don't understand why people on all "sides" of this unending debate don't just use what they have and stop caring about what the other person is using. Edit: this is more to the iPad/Surface/Note issue, but despite Beats being empirically worse, why not just leave them alone?
Click to expand...

Cause they don't leave everyone else alone. See how that works? They started it with their idea that everything Apple makes is better than everything else...when it isn't. There are too many zealots out there.
 
sweenish said:
If you haven't shopped around, being perfectly satisfied with two nearly universally bad brands doesn't really prove anything, does it?

I was also down with my cheapo Skullcandy buds back in the day. Then my sister bought v-moda vibes. I was blown away by the difference. However, issues with my pair led me to Monster Turbines (and before you let the ridiculous cables cloud your judgment, they do make great competitively priced audio gear) and I was again blown away.

From the Skullcandy buds to the vibes, the extra clarity was amazing. I could hear parts of the songs that I didn't know existed. Moving to the Turbines was less revolutionary, but they highlighted how sloppy the vibes were with bass, and overall clarity increased again.

From a pure quality perspective, beats or skullcandy headphones are not the worst things on the market. But beats are probably the worst performance/price brand on the market.

That's not the argument. The argument is that if you can afford beats, you've thrown your money away on an inferior product at that price. If I can afford a Corvette, should I pay that price for a Corolla and expect Corvette performance?

It amazes me how many people can't get the basic premise of the argument against beats. If they were priced according to their quality against the rest of the market, a lot less people would be hating on them, since they'd be priced where they should be.
Click to expand...

I had a set of v-moda vibes; they lasted maybe 2 months before breaking. Definitely not worth the price, in my opinion. Never interested in replacing them with another set. Just my experience.
 
nexus5rocks said:
Wow, so given the numerous QC issues and the notorious bad rep that Beats has in the audiophile circles, why did Apple purchase them?
Click to expand...

Another brand to market and sell. Plus HTC was getting some good reviews about it's speaker audio that supposedly used beats engine or something? Also Beats has a music stream service.
 
I really hate over the ear headphones. I used them for many years at home but I really can't stand anything other than earbuds now.

Personally I think over the ear headphones look ridiculous during travel with the exception of while you are sitting in your seat.

The Beats acquisition makes little sense to me. Perhaps I'll understand down the road when I see what Apple does with it.
 
blairharrington said:
I really hate over the ear headphones. I used them for many years at home but I really can't stand anything other than earbuds now.

Personally I think over the ear headphones look ridiculous during travel with the exception of while you are sitting in your seat.

The Beats acquisition makes little sense to me. Perhaps I'll understand down the road when I see what Apple does with it.
Click to expand...

Ear dildos are more preferable to over the ear for you? odd...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top