Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Whats so bad about Studio Beats by Dr. Dre?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whats so bad about Studio Beats by Dr. Dre? - Page 3

post #31 of 93

Couldn't really understand how the same company could have released something so bad as the Beats Studio and something so good as the Turbine Pro Copper. Could it be because of Dr. Dre? I nearly missed out on the Turbine Pro Copper because I gotten put off by the Beats.

post #32 of 93

get a bike

post #33 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolkim View Post

well see I have them, but I got mine for free so I'm good, I like em, first expensive headphoens I've had but since reading this forum I'm dying to get rid of them.

Lol how I got these are funny tho, Monster are probably the most retarded company I've ever seen, K i traded my bike for monster Solo's, I broke them 3 times in the SAME SPOT, they knew it too, so they actually said "Ok we'll upgrade you to studios for free!" K, but each time I used warranty on my solo's, they sent me one before I sent mine back, so I have 3 solos right now, and my studios and they havent called. I wonder if I can do it with these studios but they haven't broke and I haven't had a need to do it. This christmas I'm going to try and return all of these and see if I could get possibly like 1 grand in cash or gift cards. would be nice :)


Not the wisest post I've seen.  Insulting a company that leaves you w/ 4 headphones and bragging about it online.  Yeah....  

 

Your definition of good customer service differs from mine apparently.  

post #34 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danz03 View Post

Couldn't really understand how the same company could have released something so bad as the Beats Studio and something so good as the Turbine Pro Copper. Could it be because of Dr. Dre? I nearly missed out on the Turbine Pro Copper because I gotten put off by the Beats.


Same happened to me.  Heard some Beats, solos I think, at CES and ran away as fast as I could.  Pros are a whole different thing and only tried them because they had them at Fry's.  Now my MD's tag team w/ my DBA as the go to IEMs for me. 

post #35 of 93

ANC cans can be summed up in three phrases: overpriced, colored sound, and mediocre noise reduction. I'm really glad I switched to IEMs a while ago. etysmile.gif

post #36 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipilot227 View Post

ANC cans can be summed up in three phrases: overpriced, colored sound, and mediocre noise reduction. I'm really glad I switched to IEMs a while ago. etysmile.gif



IEM vs. noise cancellation?  I don't think that is a fair noise reduction comparison.  I think people buy noise cancellation headphone vs. IEM because IEMs are uncomfortable for some.

post #37 of 93

I had a chance to try the Studio's once in a Harvey Norman store in Australia, which is quite uncommon to see such a thing here down under.

Too damn bad some idiots don't turn off the damn unit after trying it, draining the battery. Oh well...some things are never meant to be heard anyways - and probably stop some potential customers from throwing their money away at it. Why the hell make it so that you always need to have a battery in it...what were they thinking!

post #38 of 93



slightly off topic here, but i love your avatar...meatwad with what appears to be senny yellow earpads

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectDenz View Post

I had a chance to try the Studio's once in a Harvey Norman store in Australia, which is quite uncommon to see such a thing here down under.

Too damn bad some idiots don't turn off the damn unit after trying it, draining the battery. Oh well...some things are never meant to be heard anyways - and probably stop some potential customers from throwing their money away at it. Why the hell make it so that you always need to have a battery in it...what were they thinking!

post #39 of 93

Beats Studios are good, but almost all other brands are amazing if you put in the same amount of budget.

post #40 of 93

I think people are just paying a premium for the "cool and hip" factor of beats

post #41 of 93

I agree with the majority here. For the price you could just do so much better in terms of sound quality. They do look damn nice though, and Monster is obviously appealing to the image conscious consumer rather than those looking for quality. If the Beats appeal to you, go for it...I wasn't really impressed with them at first listen at BB and I was still intrigued by them just on their looks. I say go with whatever makes you happy.

post #42 of 93

Could someone inform me why musical styles like hip-hop and whatever else benefit from very bass heavy reproduction like these Beats offer? Why arent these styles mixed to sound like they're apparently supposed to sound to the end user?

post #43 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shriker View Post

Could someone inform me why musical styles like hip-hop and whatever else benefit from very bass heavy reproduction like these Beats offer? Why arent these styles mixed to sound like they're apparently supposed to sound to the end user?


They benefit subjectively. They're often already mixed bass heavy, more bass is just preferred by some people. In addition, headphone bass is very different from speaker bass, and most headphones need a boost in the bass to get close to the feel of speaker bass.

 

There's also the issue of dynamic range compression in modern music, which can reduce perceived bass impact (since the sudden changes in volume between loud and quiet bass are smaller). So a little extra bass adds a sense of impact, particularly in the 90-110 Hz range or so.

post #44 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shriker View Post

Could someone inform me why musical styles like hip-hop and whatever else benefit from very bass heavy reproduction like these Beats offer? Why arent these styles mixed to sound like they're apparently supposed to sound to the end user?


Boosted low end in headphones is to try to mimic the effects of acoustic environments like speakers moving lots of air in a night club.  Headphones don't have the same acoustic environments as they sit next to your ear, which is an advantage for some or a disadvantage for others based on preferences.  Its not just Beats or 'hip/hop' based phones where this is an issue.  Even high-end audio phones debate tuning preferences like Beyerdynamic and Sennheiser, they use a mid bass hump to give the impression of music played in a room whereas Audeze and Stax aim for ruler flat low end to mimic just the recording and source.  I personally prefer the hump as I never actually listen to music live that's not affected by a room or acoustic environment.  Others prefer a 'purer' flat response for 'accuracy'.  I've just never heard a performance or played an instrument where I got that flat response in person for my ears so it doesn't always work for me.  Others swear by ruler flat as the most natural sounding thing their ears have ever heard.  This is why 'natural' is much harder to nail down compared to 'neutral' and 'accurate'.  Much more personal.  

 

No phone has a flat treble response and there are tuning preferences and compromises made, but somehow flat bass response is like a mandate from the audio gods or something and requires no compensation or tuning like treble response does.  There's also a larger more sophisticated debate about what we perceive with our ears versus how a microphone is placed and what it picks up and translates through the entire recording chain but that's a whole other elephant in the room. 

 

My 2 cents, IMHO, YMMV.

 


Edited by Anaxilus - 2/9/12 at 10:00pm
post #45 of 93


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post


Boosted low end in headphones is to try to mimic the effects of acoustic environments like speakers moving lots of air in a night club.  Headphones don't have the same acoustic environments as they sit next to your ear, which is an advantage for some or a disadvantage for others based on preferences.  Its not just Beats or 'hip/hop' based phones where this is an issue.  Even high-end audio phones debate tuning preferences like Beyerdynamic and Sennheiser, they use a mid bass hump to give the impression of music played in a room whereas Audeze and Stax aim for ruler flat low end to mimic just the recording and source.  I personally prefer the hump as I never actually listen to music live that's not affected by a room or acoustic environment.  Others prefer a 'purer' flat response for 'accuracy'.  I've just never heard a performance or played an instrument where I got that flat response in person for my ears so it doesn't always work for me.  Others swear by ruler flat as the most natural sounding thing their ears have ever heard.  This is why 'natural' is much harder to nail down compared to 'neutral' and 'accurate'.  Much more personal.  

 

No phone has a flat treble response and there are tuning preferences and compromises made, but somehow flat bass response if like a mandate from the audio gods or something and requires no compensation or tuning like treble response does.  There's also a larger more sophisticated debate about what we perceive with our ears versus how a microphone is placed and what it picks up and translates through the entire recording chain but that's a whole other elephant in the room. 

 

My 2 cents, IMHO, YMMV.

 


You nailed it....too many descriptives thrown around by what I'm willing to bet are people that don't know the slightest about a recording studio and what goies into any type of recording or what an exciting live performance is all about.

 

But yet they tell others what gear is accurate....natural....neutral.

 

Without knowing what the master tapes sound like no one can say any given recording is being reproduced better by headphone A vs headphone B.

 

But I guess thats an entire different elephant.wink.gif

 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Whats so bad about Studio Beats by Dr. Dre?