Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Special Forums › Head-Fi Bloggers › Blog Archive › CES Days 2 and 3: Skullcandy. That's right...Skullcandy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CES Days 2 and 3: Skullcandy. That's right...Skullcandy. - Page 8  

post #106 of 198

i still wouldn't buy them even if they sounded incredible for the price. as skull candy tends to be low grade quality and breaks really easily. they are mostly made out of cheap plastic and the cords are made cheaply as well.

post #107 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

i still wouldn't buy them even if they sounded incredible for the price. as skull candy tends to be low grade quality and breaks really easily. they are mostly made out of cheap plastic and the cords are made cheaply as well.



Not to mention the horrible reputation for any established headfi member.

post #108 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil3nce View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

i still wouldn't buy them even if they sounded incredible for the price. as skull candy tends to be low grade quality and breaks really easily. they are mostly made out of cheap plastic and the cords are made cheaply as well.



Not to mention the horrible reputation for any established headfi member.


that to. they sound atrocious. and we all know that and anyone on here will probably stay away from them.

post #109 of 198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post

If I understand correctly I can sum this up like: they're not quite as good as the SRH840.

 

Actually, I haven't yet decided which one I personally enjoy the sound of more.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiiskinen View Post

....I don't think it's about what they sound like all that much, it's about why anyone would choose Skullcandy over, say, Grado, Sennheiser, beyer....


As with any headphone, I think it's very much about how it sounds, especially here.  Outside of Head-Fi, the reality is very much that it would be far easier to convince people to spend $150.00 on Skullcandy than it would be to convince them to do so for headphones they've never heard of.  And if doing so nets a headphone that even Head-Fi'ers think is performing up to (or above) the price, then I see that as a very good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

....Skullcandy has a long hard uphill battle to fight if they ever want to be taken seriously by adults looking for a headphone with a good sonic signature....

 

While that's certainly true within our walls here, it's actually far less true outside of them.  Again, far more people outside of Head-Fi recognize the Skullcandy brand than many of the brands we recommend regularly within our community.  In other words, the uphill battle for Skullcandy is here; the audiophile brands have the uphill battle outside of here.

 

If they happen to sell a headphone that sounds excellent, the word is going to spread far more quickly if it's a Skullcandy than an audiophile brand that's more obscure and less known outside of here.  And if that headphone happens to be as good, at its price point, as the stuff we like in here, now we're talking about something very interesting, in my opinion, as far as exposing more people to good sound goes.

 

Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

....I'm not trying to bash the company but lets be perfectly honest when people on here say Skullcandy they begin to picture 15 year old emo kids running around with big multi colored headphones that traditionally sound awful. A 40 year old man like myself would look ridiculous running around  wearing a set of cans with the silly looking Skullcandy logo on it....

 

On looks alone, you probably wouldn't catch me out and about with this on my head:  http://www.skullcandy.com/shop/icon-soft-electric-animal.html

 

But I would gladly wear an Aviator out and about, and have been doing so.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

....Until Skullcandy throws off its we cater to the teenage crowd mentality they will never be taken seriously by adult audiophiles....

 

I don't see them ever abandoning the youth culture market, and can't see why they ever would.

 

And, In my opinion, the only thing they have to do to be taken seriously by adult headphone audiophiles is to make headphones that sound really good.  They've now done that at least once, and the one they did it with is something a lot of people even here like the looks of.

 

I've worn my SHURE SRH-840's out and about, even though it makes me look like some new member of the Teletubbies when it's on--it's rather obvious, then, that I don't much care about how my headphones look.  That said, now that there's a headphone I like the sound of that happens to also look very cool (to my eyes), I appreciate that it does look nice.  I think that outside of Head-Fi, far more people care how this largish thing worn over their heads, very visibly, looks.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bengewarmer View Post

After owning the Aviators for about two weeks or so, I have to say they do sound very good, surprisingly good, and they look awesome, but the only thing that made me bring them back was the build quality. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't exactly make me feel too confident either. Too much of a plasticy feel.

 

 

For its size, the Aviator is pretty light. Though it seems well built to me, I won't testify to its durability until it has lasted long enough, with use, to make some determination that way; or after I see how it holds up with other owners over time.

 

As for it being plasticky: Aside from what I think is synthetic leather (Skullcandy would have to confirm if it's real leather or synthetic leather), I believe the Aviator is mostly made of aluminum, stainless steel, and polycarbonate (which there is a lot of, the lenses prominently covering the outside of the earpieces).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post

....A good headphone is a good headphone. Make one and I will buy it and I will recommend it. I own headphones from lots of companies and can recommend good pairs from most manufacturers. I'd be pleased to recommend a pair from Skullcandy.

Same goes for Monster and (gasp) even Bose. Make something good and I will support you. So will many others.

I agree with this entirely, Erik.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marximus View Post

Further impressions:  these are not too comfortable over the long term.  The earcups are a bit shallow, which causes my ears to press against the drivers.  My ears tend to stick out a bit, though, so YMMV.  They're driven okay with an iPod; I'm currently at about 77% volume, and they're at a satisfactory level.  I could see these being used as commuter cans, but if I were really interested in doing so, I might go with the black ones, since the brown-and-gold model is a bit gaudy, IMO.  It's nice that they included the carrying case.  I will continue to maintain that they could realistically sell these in the $100 range, for the quality of sound they produce.

 

I've been fortunate that my ears fit inside the cups nicely, and comfortably for long listening sessions.

 

As for the Aviator being a commuter headphone:  It doesn't isolate as much as some of my other closed headphones, so I'd be hesitant to recommend it for a globetrotter or those who ride subways every day.  For out-and-about street use, though--or at coffee houses, which I enjoy working from now and then--the isolation is enough to keep your music from leaking much at moderate listening levels, which is about as much isolation as I usually need for these settings.

 

I'm glad you like it so far, by the way, Marximus.  Its sound was so unexpected for me that I needed some validation from others to make sure I wasn't hearing things wrong.  My first reaction, after putting them on in my hotel room in Las Vegas, was to search for reviews from others--which, for this headphone, there's currently a great dearth of--to see if other people who'd heard it felt similarly.  I let some friends and relatives hear it, and I took it to the recent Ann Arbor meet, where those who listened to it had reactions very similar to mine.  I'm a confident guy, and I trust my ears, but, again, the surprise was enough to have me seeking some validation before posting about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

The irony here is that there were comments about the new Sony ZX-1000s where people said they looked too bland for TOTL headphones....

 

So true.  Again, I know some are not going to like the looks of the Aviator.  I happen to, and overwhelmingly most people I show it to very much like how it looks.  Again, for something we wear so prominently on our heads out and about, maybe more emphasis (than we're seeing now) on the appearance of the on-the-go type of headphones is in order.  As an adidas fan, I'm one of the ones who appreciates the Originals series of adidas-branded (and colored) headphones that Sennheiser offers.  (I actually wish there was an Originals version of the Sennheiser MM450 Travel, a headphone I'll be talking much about in my next CES post.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemBurmingham View Post

....I just feel that this has something wrong with it.  So they make one, two, maybe three pairs of headphones that are really what the audiophile forums dig.  What of the rest of their headphones?  I mean I know that no company produces gold with every product, I just in my opinion think this is some sort of situation where Skullcandy feels audiophiles are ruining their name, and need a quick bate and switch to keep us happy and continue to produce very colorful and artsy headphones that are of a mediocre quality.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just way to jaded.

 

Sony makes a lot of headphones that we appreciate here--and a lot we don't.  As for colorful and artsy, that Sony sells headphones that look like this....

 

Screen shot 2011-01-24 at 5.20.41 PM.png

(above) Sony MDR-PQ2

 

....doesn't make any of their good stuff less good.  (I haven't heard the ones in the photo above--I only selected them in reference to your "very colorful and artsy" comment.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

I'm not the least bit interested in what this company has to offer. I suppose they'll now be a sponsor soon?


Something tells me this is our future. I wasn't going to be the first one to say it first, though.

 

And if they eventually do?  Head-Fi reaches a lot of headphone enthusiasts (hundreds of thousands each month, and millions per year), and is still growing.  It wouldn't surprise me if at some point, just about every headphone manufacturer has advertised or sponsored Head-Fi in one form or another.

 

If you're suggesting that I'm saying what needs to be said to attract a new sponsor, then I think it's reasonable to be insulted by that insinuation.  And I mean it's insulting not so much because you're questioning my integrity, but, rather, because you'd be suggesting I'd do something as boneheaded as lying about a headphone that a great many Head-Fi'ers are within a reasonable driving distance away from auditioning.  It's not like this is some obscure, one-off prototype; it's a production unit that can be found in just about every Apple Store I've been to recently.

 

For whatever it's worth to you, I like the Aviator, plain and simple, and wouldn't lie to you about it to try to make our sponsor count 32 instead of 31.  If they decide it makes business sense to sponsor Head-Fi at some point, I'd welcome them.  If they don't, then they don't, and it won't change how I feel about this headphone.

 

Someone recently asked me what the best product of 2010 was, and it gave me the idea to post what I thought the product of the year (2010) was.  My top choice is by a company that is not a sponsor.  When you see my pick for product of the year, you'll see that my choice could hardly be said to be angling for the big corporate bucks, as it's made by a very small company.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

....they are mostly made out of cheap plastic and the cords are made cheaply as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

....they sound atrocious. and we all know that and anyone on here will probably stay away from them.

 

If you've handled it and heard it, then we have diverging opinions based on experience. If you haven't, then, until you do, I think it's fair if my experience-based opinion of the product is given more weight.

 

To sum up how I feel about this headphone and what it means at this point:

 

I think Skullcandy may currently be the most popular brand of headphones on the planet (or at least in the U.S.), even if that's obviously not true in this community.  If they make something that sounds good, I think that's great news, given their reach.  That means more people exposed to excellent sound quality.

 

Again, in my estimation, they're never going to abandon the youth market, and, again, I can't see why that would make any sense for anyone to expect them to.  They haven't snuggled up with me, stared into my eyes, and told me all their hopes and dreams, but it's obvious that better sound quality is something they're shooting for.  It seems to me that Skullcandy wants to have more products their base can grow and mature with, and, as one component of that, desires to be recommended more for sound quality than is likely happening now.

 

That is, I don't think they want to become an audiophile brand, as much as they'd like to make products for their market that sound really good--and good enough that we'd like them, even if audiophiles aren't where their crosshairs are aimed most of the time.  Instead of customers having to move to other brands more revered for sound quality first (when the customers are looking to step up in sound quality), why not satisfy that need, too?  Again, that's my take on what's going on, and, if I'm right, I think that's a groovy thing, and, as far as the headphone market goes, it's big news.

 

Can Skullcandy make headphones that many audiophiles would like, even if audiophiles weren't necessarily the target for them?  As I said earlier in this long post:  To my ears, they've now done that at least once.

post #110 of 198

it'll definitely be hard for them to break into the market, but think of it this way - even if this isn't necesarily anything special for audiophiles, maybe now people who already buy skullcandy just for looks will now be exposed to quality headphones. That's always a good thing, right?

post #111 of 198



 


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

....they are mostly made out of cheap plastic and the cords are made cheaply as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

....they sound atrocious. and we all know that and anyone on here will probably stay away from them.

 

If you've handled it and heard it, then we have diverging opinions based on experience. If you haven't, then, until you do, I think it's fair if my experience-based opinion of the product is given more weight.

 

To sum up how I feel about this headphone and what it means at this point:

 

I think Skullcandy may currently be the most popular brand of headphones on the planet (or at least in the U.S.), even if that's obviously not true in this community.  If they make something that sounds good, I think that's great news, given their reach.  That means more people exposed to excellent sound quality.

 

Again, in my estimation, they're never going to abandon the youth market, and, again, I can't see why that would make any sense for anyone to expect them to.  They haven't snuggled up with me, stared into my eyes, and told me all their hopes and dreams, but it's obvious that better sound quality is something they're shooting for.  It seems to me that Skullcandy wants to have more products their base can grow and mature with, and, as one component of that, desires to be recommended more for sound quality than is likely happening now.

 

That is, I don't think they want to become an audiophile brand, as much as they'd like to make products for their market that sound really good--and good enough that we'd like them, even if audiophiles aren't where their crosshairs are aimed most of the time.  Instead of customers having to move to other brands more revered for sound quality first (when the customers are looking to step up in sound quality), why not satisfy that need, too?  Again, that's my take on what's going on, and, if I'm right, I think that's a groovy thing, and, as far as the headphone market goes, it's big news.

 

Can Skullcandy make headphones that many audiophiles would like, even if audiophiles weren't necessarily the target for them?  As I said earlier in this long post:  To my ears, they've now done that at least once.



i agree with you in that having them grow will help others get into higher audio. but at the price you say they have (referring to the aviators) then i wouldn't think the build quality would be that great. i judge this because i find skull candy makes headphones with bad quality for expensive prices. but in all honesty i like the look of the aviators but i would just worry about the reliability of the cords.

post #112 of 198

Decided to pick a pair up the other day after breaking the headband on my RP21's, and I am enjoying them so far. As commented by Jude the isolation is lacking a little. One thing I am concerned about in the build quality is the cord; it seems to be very fragile and has already started to kink and twirl up on me. The sound is sub-par to my RP21's, but I like having some phones that are pleasing to the eye, not so huge on my head and doesn't have a 100 ft long cord.

For 150$ they are nice. Most "head-fi" headphones around this price range require one to mod them and that adds to the cost of the over all product. So all-in-all I am satisfied with them for commute and will stick with the M50's for at home use.

post #113 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post



 


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

....they are mostly made out of cheap plastic and the cords are made cheaply as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

....they sound atrocious. and we all know that and anyone on here will probably stay away from them.

 

If you've handled it and heard it, then we have diverging opinions based on experience. If you haven't, then, until you do, I think it's fair if my experience-based opinion of the product is given more weight.

 

To sum up how I feel about this headphone and what it means at this point:

 

I think Skullcandy may currently be the most popular brand of headphones on the planet (or at least in the U.S.), even if that's obviously not true in this community.  If they make something that sounds good, I think that's great news, given their reach.  That means more people exposed to excellent sound quality.

 

Again, in my estimation, they're never going to abandon the youth market, and, again, I can't see why that would make any sense for anyone to expect them to.  They haven't snuggled up with me, stared into my eyes, and told me all their hopes and dreams, but it's obvious that better sound quality is something they're shooting for.  It seems to me that Skullcandy wants to have more products their base can grow and mature with, and, as one component of that, desires to be recommended more for sound quality than is likely happening now.

 

That is, I don't think they want to become an audiophile brand, as much as they'd like to make products for their market that sound really good--and good enough that we'd like them, even if audiophiles aren't where their crosshairs are aimed most of the time.  Instead of customers having to move to other brands more revered for sound quality first (when the customers are looking to step up in sound quality), why not satisfy that need, too?  Again, that's my take on what's going on, and, if I'm right, I think that's a groovy thing, and, as far as the headphone market goes, it's big news.

 

Can Skullcandy make headphones that many audiophiles would like, even if audiophiles weren't necessarily the target for them?  As I said earlier in this long post:  To my ears, they've now done that at least once.



i agree with you in that having them grow will help others get into higher audio. but at the price you say they have (referring to the aviators) then i wouldn't think the build quality would be that great. i judge this because i find skull candy makes headphones with bad quality for expensive prices. but in all honesty i like the look of the aviators but i would just worry about the reliability of the cords.



Have you handled this particular pair? No? And you can replace cables rather easily. Moving on...

 

I'm actually somewhat tempted to buy a pair of these, partly because everyone's so bigoted about these in general without even having heard them (Heck, I have a pair of Fanny Wangs on my head now, I'm the king of believing in companies) . I'd probably have to sell it after making a review though since I have no actual need for another pair of portable headphones, so if anyone wants to loan me a pair....that'd be cool. biggrin.gif

post #114 of 198

decided to get one today, gawd it attracted so many stares! i suppose the SQ is fine, but i bet recable will do wonders (felt so.... rubbery), but i'm sorry skullcandy, i'm painting the logo black

post #115 of 198

I'm looking for a pair of closed headphones now, at the 200€ price range. My top choices currently are HD-25-1 II's and HFI-780, both of which can be had for less than 200€ from Thomann (166€ and 185€, respectively), and for the sake of argument let's say the Aviators too (probably around 160-170€ in Finland).

 

Now, I'm not exactly swimming around in money, so when I make purchases like this I'll have to give it a bit of thought. I know for certain that I like Sennheiser sound (and the HD-25-1 II's sound, since I use them at the studio regularly), and that Ultrasone's sound is somewhat similar to that of Grado's, which I also like. I also know that both of these headphones are of high quality, look good* and are made by companies that I respect and trust.

 

For me to even consider the Aviators, they'd really have to be something overwhelmingly good, because I know how many atrocious (and obnoxious) headphones Skullcandy has made in the past. People say these are good. Well so are the Senn's and Ultrasone's. Why would I, who has a budget to live with, risk getting the Skullcandy's, that might as well break after a week of use, considering the build quality of past models by Skullcandy. In fact, I've heard people say that the Aviators sound and feel cheap and plasticky -- I have never heard people say that about the Senn's or Ultrasone's.

 

This is what I was originally referring to when I said that it's not about how they sound that much. Even if they sound ok, is there any reason what-so-ever for me to choose them over headphones by companies that are known for making high quality headphones? Guess it could be interesting to explore, but that's not enough for me -- call me boring if you must :p I feel a lot of people would see this choice from this perspective. I mean I know a lot of people know Skullcandy -- A lot of people also know the bad reputation Skullcandy has, which probably would turn everyone but the people who like the Skullcandy 'image' away.

 

*I prefer the way the HFI 780's look to how the Aviators look by a mile.

 

I'd really like to hear the burned-in cans in action though.. Just ouf of curiosity :)

post #116 of 198

For anyone thinking that Skullcandy actually "creates", "manufactures", "tunes", or "tweaks" headphones, this might be a good read to start: http://gizmodo.com/5617200/the-secret-scam-of-cheap-earbuds

post #117 of 198

I'd rather not support a company that makes 95%+ of their income by selling re-branded, marked up garbage regardless of the fact they are able to make one a pair of "decent" cans. Considering how most of their fashion demographic aimed cans and iems are build horribly, break constantly and sound like a child hitting a coup can with a stick i hope you will forgive me doubting their integrity when it comes to moving into a higher end market. I mean this is a company that offers a life time warranty on their products because it's easier and cheaper to replace the garbage they sell repeatedly than to actually produce or create original products that can stand the test of time.

 

post #118 of 198

hey great going with the detailed write up.

dont see much of Skullcandy in India.Have to make do with the Hesh line of head phones.

post #119 of 198


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiiskinen View Post

I'm looking for a pair of closed headphones now, at the 200€ price range. My top choices currently are HD-25-1 II's and HFI-780, both of which can be had for less than 200€ from Thomann (166€ and 185€, respectively), and for the sake of argument let's say the Aviators too (probably around 160-170€ in Finland).

 

Now, I'm not exactly swimming around in money, so when I make purchases like this I'll have to give it a bit of thought. I know for certain that I like Sennheiser sound (and the HD-25-1 II's sound, since I use them at the studio regularly), and that Ultrasone's sound is somewhat similar to that of Grado's, which I also like. I also know that both of these headphones are of high quality, look good* and are made by companies that I respect and trust.

 

For me to even consider the Aviators, they'd really have to be something overwhelmingly good, because I know how many atrocious (and obnoxious) headphones Skullcandy has made in the past. People say these are good. Well so are the Senn's and Ultrasone's. Why would I, who has a budget to live with, risk getting the Skullcandy's, that might as well break after a week of use, considering the build quality of past models by Skullcandy. In fact, I've heard people say that the Aviators sound and feel cheap and plasticky -- I have never heard people say that about the Senn's or Ultrasone's.

 

This is what I was originally referring to when I said that it's not about how they sound that much. Even if they sound ok, is there any reason what-so-ever for me to choose them over headphones by companies that are known for making high quality headphones? Guess it could be interesting to explore, but that's not enough for me -- call me boring if you must :p I feel a lot of people would see this choice from this perspective. I mean I know a lot of people know Skullcandy -- A lot of people also know the bad reputation Skullcandy has, which probably would turn everyone but the people who like the Skullcandy 'image' away.

 

*I prefer the way the HFI 780's look to how the Aviators look by a mile.

 

I'd really like to hear the burned-in cans in action though.. Just ouf of curiosity :)


I haven't heard the HD25s, but I preferred the sound of the Aviators over the HFI-780s.  The Ultrasones were too bright for me.  The Aviators seemed better balanced.  And I found the Aviators to be more comfortable.  But all else being equal, if it came down to build quality, I'd probably take the Sennheisers or Ultrasones.

post #120 of 198

is it just me or is the wesc the new skullcandy? i am seeing way more wesc then skullcandy. it makes me wonder what the big deal with wesc is. they look pretty dang ugly to me.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blog Archive
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Special Forums › Head-Fi Bloggers › Blog Archive › CES Days 2 and 3: Skullcandy. That's right...Skullcandy.