Can an audiophile comment on the actual quality of Beats' technology? Or is it just successful due to celebrity endorsements?
I am not an audiophile, and I'm usually happy with sub-$10 earbuds from Amazon.
I am not an audiophile, and I'm usually happy with sub-$10 earbuds from Amazon.
I've used two pairs of Beats headphones and disliked both. I guess the best way to describe it is that they sounded non-neutral... they change the audio.
When I try stereo equipment I have a few pieces of music I always return to and I know well, my reference points. I, and most audiophiles, shoot for equipment that is as neutral as possible, that introduces nothing new into the recording whilst reproducing the recording as faithfully as possible.
If you're asking audiophiles what equates to good, the answer will be neutrality; not modifying the audio at all. Usually this means introducing no warmth where there was none, no harshness where there was none, emphasising nothing that wasn't originally emphasised in the recording and studio, etc. You shouldn't hear the equipment used for reproduction in the music that you're reproducing.
Beats headphones are a bit like a Mega-Bass switch on old Walkman systems. What they do to the audio isn't enjoyable if you tend to like things with acoustic sections, folk music, classical, jazz, and rock.
But... for House music, Hip Hop and other club beats the changes may actually be something you enjoy and seek as they reproduce an element of how you enjoy music (closer to the memory of the club, or a loud car stereo than a perfect recording).
They are crap, for want of a better word, because they change the music noticeably. But you've got to realise this is super-subjective stuff as some people want those changes.
They are also crap, probably the right word this time, because the material choice at this price point is pretty dire. But hey, they made plastic a luxury thing again, you could argue there's some brilliance there too. Most issues around durability come from the choice of materials.
As to whether they're crap full stop... well, no.
If you like the big beats of clubs, reverberating bass that dominates, and you rank the iconic fashion statement above durability (because fashion isn't designed to last anyway)... then Beats aren't a bad choice.
"Regular people buy sound systems to listen to their music. Audiophiles buy music to listen to their sound system."
Beck - Paper Tiger (on Sea Change) about 3 minutes 15 seconds in.
Because of the combination of rich and deep bass combined with delicate strings. Single speaker systems (headphones) struggle with reproducing bass at the the same as reproducing treble.
Charlatans - Page One (on Between 10th and 11th) the first minute
It's an example of massive over-production. It's left the sound stripped and clinical, and anything less than a faithful reproduction sounds terrible. This one track exposes compression artifacts really well, the top-end becomes washed out and blurred.
Belle and Sebastian - Me and the Major (on If You're Feeling Sinister) the end of the track
I've seen them live over 100 times, been in their studio and rehearsal space, worked with them. I know his voice, how it should sound, and I know that this record did not go through great post production (or much of an amateur post production either). The mouth organ bits at the end are not controlled very well and cause systems to clip the peaks, it can be uncomfortable to listen to, and is made worse by a less than great reproduction.
I tend to also throw in Nirvana, Led Zep, Beethoven, Chopin, and some dodgy pop music. But what I look for there is mostly whether the equipment isn't killing the thing I love.
>Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of ‘specialty’ audio equipment (known as the ‘high end’), however, connect both forms of resistance. These ‘audiophiles’ construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user ‘tweaks’ of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate
People buy them because of the brand not because of the qualitity of the headphones. And yes you can get way better headphones for half the price.
I have nothing against Beats and i'm happy for the team.But it's just not worth the price for a professional or someone that actually cares about high fidelity.
It would be like buying a low end Huawei phone at the price of a high end Samsung phone just because Dr Dre is endorsing it.
However, the general sentiment from the audiophile community is that they are not terrible headphones, but you can get much much better for your money. Especially if you want transparency in your audio equipment(ie: doesn't cut/boost certain parts of the audio spectrum).
http://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/search?q=beats&restrict_s...
But remember, the word "audiophile" simply means someone who loves sound, and in practise that means someone who cares about good sound and will expend money and effort to achieve it. I'd count myself in that category, and am annoyed at the misguided noisy minority who give us a bad reputation.
There's plenty of well informed, intelligent audiophiles who know their shit, aren't susceptible to marketing hype, and just want a faithful reproduction of their treasured music. Unfortunately, there's also a certain type of person who needs "something to believe in" in life and so gets on board with this kind of pseudo-religion with about as much credibility as the healing vibrations of crystals. You'll find them at the high-end stereo shop buying $500 ethernet cables (the network packets are so much more vibrant!) or signing up for the Pono kickstarter.
To simply put, if you are heavy Bass listener. And dont listen to any type of music other then Rock / Hip Hop. Then may be Beats is perfect.
You could argue most audiophile would embarrass themselves with blind test, but the traits in Beats are so different that any normal human being should easily distinguish it.
They are, however, pretty good looking (imho), sturdy and extremely comfortable. They have also become (amongst non-geeks) the go-to headphones if you want something good as they don't have time to research the differences between HD598 and HD650.
If you buy a good pair of headphones that are balanced (eg. Sennheiser HD598), you can use a equalizer on your computer to make them sound just like Beats.
Basically, you can make Sennheisers sound like Beats, but you can't make Beats sound like Senheisers.