Mmmm... I guess I still don't understand.
From the way I see it the design/build materials/comfort/style is basically the same from Beats to Yamaha (since yamaha basically just copied the Beats). This is actually quite fascinating to me because basically yamaha removed all the other variables except for sound quality by copying the Beats design.
The Beats are OVERpriced at $300, because they have muddy bass/bad sound quality. So that means they should NOT be worth $300? ...So let's say maybe the range is $100-200 for muddy bass headphones? if you think the Beats are overpriced and muddy bass should cost under $150 (since Audio-Technica M50 under $150 is is supposed to have better sound than the Beats)... then Yamaha is charging an extra $250 to remove the mud from the bass...
The Yamaha Pro 500 is $400!!!! exact same everything except for the sound quality. So the cost of NOT having muddy bass is $100 more than the overpriced Beats? Legitimately, it costs $100 extra to tune the sound to make it less muddy??? ...and this is considered to be a fair price by audiophiles???
isn't the main complaints against Beats that they are overcharging for their sonic qualities?? I don't really see how Yamaha is doing anything differently =S
...I think there might already be closed headphones with good bass that are not muddy under $300???
I understand where you are coming from, and as I have not heard the Yamaha Pro headphones, I am unable to offer any insight as to its sonic properties and if it is deserving of its relatively high price tag. Just because it looks like the Beats (an unfortunate mistake) doesn't necessarily mean it sounds anything like it, even in a reduced-bass-quantity form.
The reason why I feel the Beats Solo/Studio are terribly overpriced is because I can get something similar (or even better sounding) for a whole lot less. Again, the Yamahas may be overpriced, but that is a conclusion that can only be reached after actively listening with it.