B&W P5 Headphones: An Unboxing of the Bowers & Wilkins P5 Headphones - Page 4

Originally Posted by yashu

I actually like the look, but would never buy anything that has marketing that goes a little something like "ipod.... blahblah on the go! ipod... blah blah.... iphone... blah blah ipod iphone one the go lifestyle iphone apple ipod iphone... blah blah blah our signature attention to detail... blah blah iphone."

I mean... seriously. Did they ever look around and notice, that most people with a portable *don't* have an iphone, ipod, or anything apple related? Why not just make all the black on the phones white and call it a day? I am not saying they would not sound great with an ipod, perhaps even amazingly great, but the ipod nano is not the "best" DAP, in size, price, and in the freedom to actually simply move your music around. Maybe I am biased, but I actually did not know until about a year and a half ago that you needed itunes just to use one. I thought you only needed itunes if you wanted to buy music, that, at the time, was DRMed, and when I plugged one in after they removed DRM, I dropped some mp3s on the drive that got mapped and couldn't find them on the player. Yeah, old news to everyone in the world, but I honestly booted a virtual machine to make sure itunes didn't wreck my collection's tagging and structure, and waited forever for a simple copy of some songs, and most of them would only play for 30 seconds and then stop.

I bring this up for a very valid reason. As an audiophile in the area of speakers as well, I know for a fact that crap like that would never be tollarated. I mean, put the CD in, press play, enjoy. Set the record down, lower the needle and enjoy. Simple right? It makes sense, why do you think SACD was never widely accepted? *You* (as in anyone but a select few Sony must approve of) can't make one! SACD sounds great, but between a really good redbook player, a nice vinyl rig, and... a pair of coveted B&Ws, many were within their audio nirvana. That whole ipod ipod iphone ipod thing gets to me, because it tethers what may be a very fine product to a specific brand that likes to make things annoyingly inconvenient to use, for a market that really *really* hates restrictions. Maybe the skullcandy crowd has been saving their money, and just waiting for the next thing since the beats turned out to be, well, you get the idea, but personally this speaks of, perhaps a growing trend: Loss of interest in good 2 channel music. B&W is expecting many a 256k aac file to be played through these. Not a *bad* lossy file, but not something you would put through a set of B&W floorstanders, or bookshelves on weighted stands, with some rather well engineered equipment sitting between.

I hope B&W does not create a trend where it is forgotten that the ipod is not the reference system we would rather hook something like this into. It doesn't have to be an apple advert to be made to work with a portable player as well as a home system. Many audiophiles do DIY, also, to an extent, because we are, by nature, obsessive, however, again, it speaks to a gap in market understanding. Don't tie your flagship to something really proprietary, even if just some marketing copy.

Originally Posted by yashu

I actually like the look, but would never buy anything that has marketing that goes a little something like "ipod.... blahblah on the go! ipod... blah blah.... iphone... blah blah ipod iphone one the go lifestyle iphone apple ipod iphone... blah blah blah our signature attention to detail... blah blah iphone."

I mean... seriously. Did they ever look around and notice, that most people with a portable *don't* have an iphone, ipod, or anything apple related? Why not just make all the black on the phones white and call it a day? I am not saying they would not sound great with an ipod, perhaps even amazingly great, but the ipod nano is not the "best" DAP, in size, price, and in the freedom to actually simply move your music around. Maybe I am biased, but I actually did not know until about a year and a half ago that you needed itunes just to use one. I thought you only needed itunes if you wanted to buy music, that, at the time, was DRMed, and when I plugged one in after they removed DRM, I dropped some mp3s on the drive that got mapped and couldn't find them on the player. Yeah, old news to everyone in the world, but I honestly booted a virtual machine to make sure itunes didn't wreck my collection's tagging and structure, and waited forever for a simple copy of some songs, and most of them would only play for 30 seconds and then stop.

I bring this up for a very valid reason. As an audiophile in the area of speakers as well, I know for a fact that crap like that would never be tollarated. I mean, put the CD in, press play, enjoy. Set the record down, lower the needle and enjoy. Simple right? It makes sense, why do you think SACD was never widely accepted? *You* (as in anyone but a select few Sony must approve of) can't make one! SACD sounds great, but between a really good redbook player, a nice vinyl rig, and... a pair of coveted B&Ws, many were within their audio nirvana. That whole ipod ipod iphone ipod thing gets to me, because it tethers what may be a very fine product to a specific brand that likes to make things annoyingly inconvenient to use, for a market that really *really* hates restrictions. Maybe the skullcandy crowd has been saving their money, and just waiting for the next thing since the beats turned out to be, well, you get the idea, but personally this speaks of, perhaps a growing trend: Loss of interest in good 2 channel music. B&W is expecting many a 256k aac file to be played through these. Not a *bad* lossy file, but not something you would put through a set of B&W floorstanders, or bookshelves on weighted stands, with some rather well engineered equipment sitting between.

I hope B&W does not create a trend where it is forgotten that the ipod is not the reference system we would rather hook something like this into. It doesn't have to be an apple advert to be made to work with a portable player as well as a home system. Many audiophiles do DIY, also, to an extent, because we are, by nature, obsessive, however, again, it speaks to a gap in market understanding. Don't tie your flagship to something really proprietary, even if just some marketing copy.

Originally Posted by logwed

They're supra-aural?

Originally Posted by ben4345

too bad they're made just for iPod.

Originally Posted by Landis

They look gorgeous!

But how do they sound?

Originally Posted by hawat

The apple website says that they are noise isolating but from their looks it seems that much noise would leak.
But the mic is nice if they do sound good. That would be one of the rare good headset

Originally Posted by yashu

Don't tie your flagship to something really proprietary, even if just some marketing copy.

Originally Posted by dBel84

sadly I do not see the attraction, perhaps they are nicer in person but from the images they remind me of a number of vintage cans which were not particularly comfortable.

I do like B&W speakers however and thus hope they live up to their namesake in sound.

..dB

Originally Posted by gbacic

They aren't a headphone company, they are a speaker company. No one uses an ipod with B&W 800's.

Originally Posted by gbacic

Just because they release a headphone that will work well with an ipod doesn't mean that they are becoming like Bose and dumping all their money into advertising.

Originally Posted by plainsong

If they're anything like the B&W speakers at my hairdresser's, or the prog-rock loving vintage B&W's that belonged to my brother in-law, this could potentially be made of awesome.

They've got the whole retro-nowtro thing going in terms of looks. Now all we need is the sound.

If they don't cut it sonically, then we have plenty of other choices out there. In the meantime, I look forward to finding out more about these.

Originally Posted by IPodPJ

From a review on Apple's site:

* * * * *

Excellent sound, but...

• Written by HV from Ilford
• 20-Feb-2010

These cans have great sounds and I have discovered detail not previously heard from my iPod, which is fantastic. They are well constructed and look the business (actually they are the best looking non-ear headphones out there)

But, and this is a big one for me, the headband is small so if you have a slightly larger head like myself then they are a uncomfortable to wear for prolong periods since it does not sit nicely on top if you want your ears to be properly covered. This is a real shame since it would have gotten the five stars which it no doubt deserves. Alas, if only they made the headband bigger. I recommend you try them on first before rushing to buy.