Youtube video saying earphones are ripoff. - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingtz 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluFalcon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by thornygravy 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT 

Anyone with a brain, who is interested in sound quality would most likely steer away from the Monster Beats.

I always see these 'gangsta homies' with them on riding the bus, it makes me giggle.

Why do they have to be "gangsta homies"? 

Like the person above said, they're marketed using Dr. Dre's name to the hiphop crowd. I don't find it unreasonable or surprising that the vast majority of people buying these headphones will thus be "gangsta homies". Like them or hate hate them, they are what they are. Why are some people getting offended?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobaccoRoad 

this whole "gangsta" thing is so last year anyway..ain't that right homie? it's all about the auto-tune. MEGA GIGABYTES SON!

"yao dawg"

lol I wouldn't know. I was being sarcastic about the auto-tune. I don't even listen to dance music.

But that T-Pain commercial is funny as hell

Autotune was only cool when Roger Troutman (Zapp), Peter Frampton and select bands like Aerosmith were doing it back in the 70s and 80s.  It was used sparingly to enhance the music, not act as a crutch for artist who can't really sing. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluFalcon 

Autotune was only cool when Roger Troutman (Zapp), Peter Frampton and select bands like Aerosmith were doing it back in the 70s and 80s.  It was used to sparingly to enhance the music, not act as a crutch for artist who can't really sing. 

oh, and it's even worse when the instrumentals are also autotuned making everything 100% autotune

I MAY BE I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I DOUBT IT

D-E-F-E-N-S-E

DEFENSE

I agree with the video. the earbud cost is like 10 bucks, they charge 200 dollar for no reason. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziweiwu 

I agree with the video. the earbud cost is like 10 bucks, they charge 200 dollar for no reason. 

...headphones cost $10.01...it all goes into r/d and advertising, the physical product isn't that much of a factor

R&D is where most of it would go towards. There's also other costs such as wages for your employees, the building you are using, advertising, cost of equipment, etc. 

The cost of the materials is typically not too expensive. Take customs for example and the ES3X. The drivers inside would cost someone around $75 per ear if they bought it. However purchasing it in bulk brings down the price by a lot but the ES3X is quite expensive. The price is so high due to labor and the expertise needed to make a custom iem.

If it was so easy then people would make their own products and not need these companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rawrster 

R&D is where most of it would go towards. There's also other costs such as wages for your employees, the building you are using, advertising, cost of equipment, etc. 

 

The cost of the materials is typically not too expensive. Take customs for example and the ES3X. The drivers inside would cost someone around $75 per ear if they bought it. However purchasing it in bulk brings down the price by a lot but the ES3X is quite expensive. The price is so high due to labor and the expertise needed to make a custom iem.

 

If it was so easy then people would make their own products and not need these companies.

honestly, plastic/polystyrene (the material used to make the headphones) isn't that expensive, but with the rising cost of petroleum, the cost is creeping up rather quickly or has. anywho, a lot of the costs go into the mold/presses used to make the pieces, from my plastic modeling days, tooling molds for a kit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would imagine the same applies to headphones as well

I think sometimes, one cannot judge the price of a product purely on the product itself; for instant, Bonaqua is more or less tap water with added minerals, while tap water is almost free, Bonaqua cost about $0.5 for a half litre bottle. The packaging, marketing and transportation probably accounts for 99.99% of it's retail price. So even compare to Beats, the mark-up price for Bonaqua is quite outrageous, but I don't hear many people complaining about that.

With some of the top notch IEMs, I dare say the packaging and the accessories actually cost the same or more than the IEMs themselves to produce. But would anyone pay $400 for a pair of IEMs that comes in a plastic bag? I doubt it very much. It's like a car that has the same performance of a Ferrari but look like a pick-up truck, I doubt it would be able to fetch the same $200,000 of a Ferrari. 

Hahahaha, lesson of the day: head-fi is SRSBSNS. Someone mocked the IEM crowd and got RALLIED.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingtz 

Like the person above said, they're marketed using Dr. Dre's name to the hiphop crowd. I don't find it unreasonable or surprising that the vast majority of people buying these headphones will thus be "gangsta homies". Like them or hate hate them, they are what they are. Why are some people getting offended?

Thank you!

I thought Frampton used a talkbox to modulate a guitar signal... when I read "autotune," I think of software-based pitch-correction applied to a vocal.  Though now that I think about it, in extreme cases, autotuned vocals can sort of sound like an old-school guitar+talkbox. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluFalcon 

Autotune was only cool when Roger Troutman (Zapp), Peter Frampton and select bands like Aerosmith were doing it back in the 70s and 80s.  It was used sparingly to enhance the music, not act as a crutch for artist who can't really sing. 

Yeah, what Frampton used was a talk box guitar effect and not Auto-tune, apparently, it's not very good for the teeth. I think Auto-tune is a modern version of the vocoder, first used by Kraftwerk on 'Autobahn. It's sad to see how so many singers (even some good ones) are relying so much on Auto-tune nowadays. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlniec 

I thought Frampton used a talkbox to modulate a guitar signal... when I read "autotune," I think of software-based pitch-correction applied to a vocal.  Though now that I think about it, in extreme cases, autotuned vocals can sort of sound like an old-school guitar+talkbox. 

Interesting.  I always thought autotune (latest term), talkbox, vocoders were all pretty much the same thing.  Thanks for the info. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlniec 

I thought Frampton used a talkbox to modulate a guitar signal... when I read "autotune," I think of software-based pitch-correction applied to a vocal.  Though now that I think about it, in extreme cases, autotuned vocals can sort of sound like an old-school guitar+talkbox. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluFalcon 

Autotune was only cool when Roger Troutman (Zapp), Peter Frampton and select bands like Aerosmith were doing it back in the 70s and 80s.  It was used sparingly to enhance the music, not act as a crutch for artist who can't really sing.