Originally Posted by superlowfi
Buying HD800 is also buying social status here. You're buying the admiration of people who despise Beats and the hatred of people who praise Beats.
Every community believes they follow the One True Way.
The Sony MDR-R10 is where it's at. Dem boicellulose drivers! But yeah, the HD800s are pretty cool too. I've only ever seen one person use them in the library. Bad idea? Yep. I could hear indistinct audio coming from the headphones, albeit sitting 5 metres away! The MDR-R10 are closed back, but sound sooooo open considering.
Originally Posted by ThickGlasses
I actually agree with this, it's kinda like the piracy debate. I'm of the opinion that piracy is good just like I'm of the opinion that beats are good; not as headphones, but as a boost to the industry.
There we're far fewer audiophiles before the bass craze and there are far more good headphones now.
There were far fewer self-proclaimed audiophiles before the bass craze.
Originally Posted by subsonic1050
If beats headphones are merely a fashion statement, then why aren't they sold in the clothing/fashion areas of stores? They are marketed and sold as quality headphones, something which they most certainly are not. The average consumer believes that if they shell out $300-400 dollars they are buying nearly the best of what money can buy in headphone quality. Honestly, the first time I heard a pair of Beats headphones they sounded so muddy and distorted that I asked the sales representative if the demo pair had blown drivers.
That being said, it isn't Monster's fault that consumers are uninformed and have poor hearing. We live in a capitalist economy where businesses are free to sell their wares for whatever price the market will allow. My only problem with them is that they are SO bad that their marketing borders on false advertising.
Beats aren't merely a fashion statement. From many aspects, Beats are a lot like Apple. They provide relatively superior features to a consumer, that are in most cases, immediately apparent to them. For example, take the iPhone. Compared to many other competing brands, the iPhone would appear to be the best smartphone in all aspects that an average consumer seeks in a smartphone. High resolution display, speedy and streamlined operation, high quality materials and well thought out design that is fit for single-handed operation.
Bear in mind that this is what an average consumer sees. All these things are superior in practicality, but as we all know, all iPhones have inferior hardware compared to other smartphones of the same generation. Where other phones will have x.x GHz x-core processors, x.x inch x HD screen, x GB RAM etc, all Apple advertises is the 'Retina Display'. Apple Ax Chip and stuff like that. All iPhone users need to know is that they're getting something better than last time. And because Apple designs both the hardware and software, the iPhone would seem to perform just as well as any other smartphone of the same generation and price range, if not better.
Now onto Beats. Before the headphone war started by Beats, people didn't really care about high fidelity portable audio. They were content with the freebies that were bundled with their device, and didn't really see any point in spending hundreds of dollars on a better headphone, when they didn't have very high expectations. They were listening to their favourite music for the sake of music, and not the audio quality. That's what audiophiles do, and they were also quite a small community back then. Nowadays on Head-Fi, being an audiophile is kinda the only way to distinguish yourself from people who like Beats. You're either one or the other - you can't consider both sides of the argument and reason with logic and factual evidence.
Anyway, we all know what 'popular music' is. Think VEVO. And also, this is where Apple ties in with Beats; iTunes. The iPod is ubiquitous, and now it's the iPhone's turn. As we all know, they all come with a pair of trademark white Apple earbuds, famous for their ubiquity and poor audio quality. Hundreds of millions of people use these earbuds every day to listen to music purchased from the iTunes store. And the majority of this music is, as expected. 'popular music'. See where this is heading?
From an average consumer's point of view, Beats would seem to be the fanciest headphone around for a few reasons:
1. Dedicated eye-catching demo stand
2. Eye-catching design
3. Endorsed and used by 'popular music' artists
4. Audio quality that greatly contrasts that of Apple earbuds
5. Relatively superior practical portable functionality
People who were used to using Apple earbuds to listen to music would naturally think that Beats makes the best headphone. It really all started with the original Studios.
The Apple earbuds:
- Lacked bass and highs
- Lacked well-defined sound
- Lacked noise isolation
The Beats Studios:
- Have booming bass and crystal clear highs
- Have 'detailed' sound
- Have active noise isolation that have a noticeable hiss, as opposed to the unnoticeable Bose ANC hiss
Furthermore, the Beats stood out from all the other large headphones because they:
- Were foldable and have a portable carry case
- Had a detachable cable so you could change it according to your needs, or replace it when it's broken
- Have a fancy retail box and many accessories that aren't often used but appealed to consumers anyway such as a 3.5 to 6.3 mm stereo jack adapter and a flight adapter
TL;DR: Beats provide superior practical functionality for someone who is used to Apple earbuds compared to other expensive headphones.
Edited by vantt1 - 4/19/14 at 5:46pm