Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › why so ugly?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

why so ugly? - Page 9

post #121 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


Strange, can't quote the first paragraph.

 

Anyway, I know it's like this for a reason (or we hope, since they didn't change anything with the $2000 LCD-3). That's just the impression I get when I look at it. Functionality and found materials over stylistic design and sophistication.


I wold have to agree with you on the "sophisticated" part though for sure - sophisticated is the direct opposite of the LCD-2 industrial design.  There is an abject lack of concern for sophistication in the industrial design as you rightly point out.  I don't know how I managed to disagree with that.

 

I should't post before coffee kicks ino2smile.gif

post #122 of 134

I liked the look of the LCD-2 upon first impression and still do.

post #123 of 134

HeadInjury is right though - we like them but not because they are "sophisticated" - they are a pretty simplistic, direct and raw design and all the better for it.


Edited by drez - 12/22/11 at 10:29pm
post #124 of 134

I guess I have a very skewed idea of sophistication. blink.gif

post #125 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Man, the LCD-2 is not "sophisticated", not in my eyes anyway. I like because of its DIY thrown-together-in-a-garage sort of steampunk look. Like they thought, "How can we make this thing look as big, unwieldy, and overindulgent as possible using this superglue and wrench?"


I love the steampunk look.  The LCD-2 begs to be hooked up to a tube amp just for the looks.  I love tubes for their aesthetics if nothing else.

post #126 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post



I love the steampunk look.  The LCD-2 begs to be hooked up to a tube amp just for the looks.  I love tubes for their aesthetics if nothing else.

Slap a Nixie clock on your minimalist SS amp and go then biggrin.gif All you'll ever get is the aesthetic from those.
post #127 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sml1226 View Post

Slap a Nixie clock on your minimalist SS amp and go then biggrin.gif All you'll ever get is the aesthetic from those.


Wow.  That's amazingly awesome.  I should have thought of that earlier.  I need a nixie tube to display the position of the ladder relay volume control on my Objective Desktop Amp I'm going to be building next year.

post #128 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sml1226 View Post


Slap a Nixie clock on your minimalist SS amp and go then biggrin.gif All you'll ever get is the aesthetic from those.


You could also go this route for the wow factor...http://www.head-fi.org/t/580726/my-latest-creation-the-sound-is-completely-neutral#post_7898468

 

350x263px-LL-b4872c42_P1000661Large.jpeg

post #129 of 134

I kind of agree.  However, if you check out Monster's other headphones, you'll realize that most of their headphones are very stylish.  They might not make the best quality sound, but I really appreciate how each of their headphones have 1) a detachable cable (which some 300 dollar headphones don't even include) 2) foldable/collapsible (seriously, even the giant Beats Pro can fold)

3) their designs are creative and target the new generation

 

However, a few hi-end headphones look good.  The Sennheiser HD25 Adidas version is DECENT looking, if not a bit tacky.  Also, the Audio-Technica Pro-700MK2 look pretty good to me (especially if you replace the wire's color).  It seems that the headphone industry requires you to either buy amazing headphones that are hideous (or "classy" depending on your personality) or beautiful headphones that lack quality).

 

Most headphones are used in studios anyways or, at least, are intended to be, so looks aren't that important

 

 

post #130 of 134

Because beauty is subjective, what matters is the acoustic, and of course, the sound. I love the LCD-2's design though..

post #131 of 134

This entire thread is subjective. I wouldn't touch Monster headphones with a yardstick, but I love the look of the LCD-2s. OP has obviously never seen the W3000ANV or Edition 8 before. Even the Phiaton MS400s are stunners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiker535 View Post

Because beauty is subjective, what matters is the acoustic, and of course, the sound. I love the LCD-2's design though..



 

post #132 of 134

What most of you aren't aware is that this forum is an all-age-allowed forum, there are lots of teenagers (or even younger, occasionally) surfing / posting here.

 

Many teenagers have their own concept of "stylish" and "well-made" which derive from their daily exposure to the world (nowadays it's mostly to video games). Hence headphones with shiny plastic / bright colours / all metal / sharp angles etc appeal the most to them.

 

I'm talking about male teenagers of course (OP being one), girls are another matter entirely.

 

The point is that they will grow out of it, in time.

post #133 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiker535 View Post

Because beauty is subjective, what matters is the acoustic, and of course, the sound. I love the LCD-2's design though..


While beauty is subjective, and design is usually considered subjective, there are a lot of things objective about it. Similar to how audio is very subjective, but objectively, one piece of hardware can be objectively better. It's less based on measurements and more based on things like color theory, contrast, and design rules (following or skillfully breaking them). Usually when designing a product, the designer has to look at the market for the products, and what that market likes. They also need to balance trends vs. classic design. What I mean by this is, for example, take these two shoes:

nike-big-nike-wolverine-x-men-pack-3.jpg

 

wolverine-1000-mile-2010-fall-winter-5.jpg

 

 

The first follows (albeit exaggerated) modern trends for a specific market. This market likes bright colors, flashy design, and very high saturation, and this fits that market. These probably sell quite well. But, come 10, 20, 30, 100 years from now, they'll be laughable. Hell, they may be laughable next year for all we know.

 

The second is what I would call classic. The company who makes these boots (Wolverine) has been making leather boots for over 125 years. These boots were first introduced on their 100th anniversary (over 25 years ago). These are of the same (or almost the same) design as Wolverine's first boots, made over 125 years ago. No year has gone by, from the first time these were made, up until now, where these boots haven't looked anything short of great. That is what I mean when I say classic. Much like the trench coat, first used by soldiers in World War I, or the Peacoat, which has origins as far back as 1720. To even something as recent as the designs of Dieter Rams of Brawn, who is the primary influence behind Apple's current aesthetic.

 

And a lot of times, good design does not equal high sales. A lot of times, the opposite can be said. And usually things that follow design trends usually sell better, because that's what the people like, and it fits into what is popular. However, that doesn't mean you can't make something that looks good with current design trends. Personally, I think the Beats look pretty nice (*especially* in white), but are they classic? Will they look good to the average consumer 20 years down the line? Probably not, but that's okay, design is always evolving, and only a few lucky design aspects contribute to the list of what we consider "classic design aesthetics".

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

What most of you aren't aware is that this forum is an all-age-allowed forum, there are lots of teenagers (or even younger, occasionally) surfing / posting here.

 

Many teenagers have their own concept of "stylish" and "well-made" which derive from their daily exposure to the world (nowadays it's mostly to video games). Hence headphones with shiny plastic / bright colours / all metal / sharp angles etc appeal the most to them.

 

I'm talking about male teenagers of course (OP being one), girls are another matter entirely.

 

The point is that they will grow out of it, in time.


As someone who was a teenager not all that long ago, there is *some* truth in what you said, but with a caveat. There are quite a number of people that do not fit into that stereotype.

 


Edited by Taowolf51 - 1/29/12 at 9:17pm
post #134 of 134

That's why I said 'many', and not 'most' or 'all'. I was a teenager 4 or 5 years ago too.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › why so ugly?