I kind of want to hear your thoughts to this article.

A lot of audiophiles approach the Beats crowd in the wrong fashion, and try in vain to convince them that they should prefer listening to a ruler-flat frequency response.  This goes absolutely nowhere for most of them - they might as well be conversing in two different languages.  The point is to show that yes, you can love bass and have a bass-boosted headphone, but at the price point the Beats sell at, they pale in comparison to even many far lesser-priced headphones which have higher quality and sometimes even quantity of bass.  There are so many headphones that beat the Beats at their own game.  Part of the problem is lack of knowledge and awareness of higher quality products, and part of it is the marketing of the Beats as a fashion accessory and in being part of a hip culture. 

And in a broader sense I also agree with the concept of "finishing the music the way you want it."  An artist does not and cannot have complete control over the presentation of their work.  People will consume media in all varieties and forms and from wildly varying and unique backgrounds and perspective, and thus will interpret the results differently.  In this sense the artist and the consumer are both sharing in the work of creation of art, and different people will be more or less active in how they receive the work, whether it's music, film, writing, etc.  Ultimately, the consumer is king and the purpose of production is for consumption. 

Interesting perspective, but I don't feel it's saying anything new. People who don't want to spend a lot of time learning about or researching a product will buy whatever is quick'n'easy and readily available, especially if it's well endorsed. It won't be the best possible solution, but it usually gets the job done well enough, while costing more. This isn't just true with Beats.

"Music is never finished; we can chop and screw, add bass, slow it down 100x, mash it up with something else. And people will buy headphones that finish the music in the way they like."

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this comment. Why would you want a headphone that would finish something that the mastering engineer was to lazy to finish? Headphones aren't for a consumer to change the music, but to reproduce it as when the artist was in the recording studio. Headphones should not be left to the consumer to pick how they "want to top their Sunday" as they say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cifani090 

"Music is never finished; we can chop and screw, add bass, slow it down 100x, mash it up with something else. And people will buy headphones that finish the music in the way they like."

 

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this comment. Why would you want a headphone that would finish something that the mastering engineer was to lazy to finish? Headphones aren't for a consumer to change the music, but to reproduce it as when the artist was in the recording studio. Headphones should not be left to the consumer to pick how they "want to top their Sunday" as they say.

True, we should hear what the artist wanted us to hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slaw slaw 

True, we should hear what the artist wanted us to hear.

More often than not that means we should be listening on iBuds, though.

Purity of signal is always a good idea though. Get a neutral amp and DAC, get a headphone with the right amount of transient response and resonance. Then EQ at will if you want. That can be turned on and off, at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

More often than not that means we should be listening on iBuds, though.

 

Purity of signal is always a good idea though. Get a neutral amp and DAC, get a headphone with the right amount of transient response and resonance. Then EQ at will if you want. That can be turned on and off, at least.

Do you prefer the iBuds over the LCD-2's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cifani090 

Do you prefer the iBuds over the LCD-2's?

What led you to believe I did?

Why I would I prefer to hear what the artist wanted me to hear instead of what I want to hear? That point has never made sense to me. I listen to music to enjoy it.

The author is trying to say, beats reproduce sound the best for modern day recordings. This is false, there are much better headphones out there, people just fail to see it. Frankly, I stopped caring because in the end, it really doesn't matter, everyone has different priorities. On another note, I find that the only author on Gizmodo that I can trust when it comes to audio is Mario Aguilar, has some interesting articles and is one of the main reasons I read Gizmodo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exediron 

Why I would I prefer to hear what the artist wanted me to hear instead of what I want to hear? That point has never made sense to me. I listen to music to enjoy it.

I agree with this. I can appreciate good recording dynamics and engineering, but if an artist wanted a recording to sound shrill and thin, I would want a laid-back pair of headphones with smooth highs to remedy that. The only way to hear what the artist wants you to hear is to use the equipment they used, which btw, is not a pair of LCD-2s or HD800s, it's usually some V6s or M50s depending on who you're listening to. Besides, most post production is done on monitor speakers, not usually headphones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

What led you to believe I did?

"More often than not that means we should be listening on iBuds, though."

Well it seems like you dont like them, and your always putting out these nonchalant meaningless comments on the "pony thread" and so you kinda brought them over here. Soo... if you dont want your LCD-2, i wont mind being your next heir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cifani090 

"More often than not that means we should be listening on iBuds, though."

 

Well it seems like you dont like them, and your always putting out these nonchalant meaningless comments on the "pony thread" and so you kinda brought them over here. Soo... if you dont want your LCD-2, i wont mind being your next heir.

Did you read what post I responded to? He said we should hear the music how the artist intended. More often than not, that means consumer gear like iBuds. Consumer gear makes up the majority of the gear of the intended audience. Music is mastered to sound good on it. That's how it's expected to be used.

Hence, if we want what the artist intends, we need to use the gear they expect. Never once did I say it would sound better on the iBuds, or that the iBuds sound better. In fact, I even said the opposite when I mentioned purity of signal. Reading comprehension is awesome.

What does the pony thread have to do with anything I posted here? I fear you're letting your biases get the better of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

Did you read what post I responded to? He said we should hear the music how the artist intended. More often than not, that means consumer gear like iBuds. Consumer gear makes up the majority of the gear of the intended audience. Music is mastered to sound good on it. That's how it's expected to be used.

 

Hence, if we want what the artist intends, we need to use the gear they expect. Never once did I say it would sound better on the iBuds, or that the iBuds sound better. In fact, I even said the opposite when I mentioned purity of signal. Reading comprehension is awesome.

 

What does the pony thread have to do with anything I posted here? I fear you're letting your biases get the better of you.

There there. He's only a kid afterall.