"First Look" at the NEW revised 2012 Beats by Dr Dre Beats Studio headphones unboxing video &... - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy528 

 

I was using my $1200 German made Lehmann Audio Black Cube Linear amp (a neutral amp), on the MIXR & BeatsPro I got them to play pretty loud (beyond what I would listen at) with the volume knob at 12' o'clock.  On the Solo HD the volume knob was near 4 o'clock to get the same volume level.  I used the amp because I found the Solo HD to sound dull and muffled on my iPhone 4s.  Playing the same tracks through the Lehmann amp, the music came alive.  The bass on the Solo HD was hitting so hard my ear & lobs were vibrating.  I wanted to play it even louder, but I know I shouldn't due to the risk of hear damage.  The Solo HD did not distort at all at any levels when using my amp.  It was an eye opener so say the least.  

Holy smokes !! 4 o'clock is pretty damn loud..I never get past 11 o'clock on my HD800 using S7. Beats solo must be one hell of a inefficient headphone!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy528 

I was using my $1200 German made Lehmann Audio Black Cube Linear amp (a neutral amp), on the MIXR & BeatsPro I got them to play pretty loud (beyond what I would listen at) with the volume knob at 12' o'clock.  On the Solo HD the volume knob was near 4 o'clock to get the same volume level.  I used the amp because I found the Solo HD to sound dull and muffled on my iPhone 4s.

Okay, so there is an efficiency issue here.  The sad part of this is that the number of people that would apply amplification is statistically insignificant right?  Most people will just run if off their iDevice and be done with it.  So here's lies the crux of the SoloHD review, are you going to judge it amped or unamped?  If you mention that it sounds good, you'd have to qualify that with a description of your rig... and to then be fair you'd have to run all the rest of the cans through the BCL as well.  Otherwise, you're gonna have to render the verdict you did above, that it sounds "dull and muffled", which is spot on with my impression of the unit when I had it.  I definitely don't envy you this task, but I am curious as to how it will turn out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich 

Well this went down to the depths of Hades pretty quick.

Yeah well, we kind of knew it would though (hence my caution early on).  But we all know why this is so...

Head-Fi is one of the best havens for people that pursue fidelity, and high-fidelity at that.  The order of the day here is neutrality and transparency - the rendering of sound in the purest form possible via headphones.  As such, almost everything else takes a backseat.  What drives many a Head-Fier here is the longing to hear angels dancing on the head of a pin.  Actually, its more like hearing those angels catch their breath while they dance on the head of that pin.  And this longing is a seriously powerful drive here.  Anything that gets in the way of that is going to cause a bit of ire.  Coloration is accepted but not praised.  Comfort is grudingly considered somewhat essential, though still secondary to SQ.  Think about how many times people are advised to switch pads, stretch headbands, or mod cans before giving up on them for something more consumer oriented.

I personally love the typical AKG sound, but as much as I like the soundstage, I do end up having to qualify some of my remarks by mentioning that AKGs are "fun" cans - and not necessarily pure audiophile cans (at least not in the same vein as Senns, Audez'es, etc.).  And that's fine, I've gotten used to it.  But there is scorn for "lesser" (i.e. less analytical) cans here in these forums, and things tend to go downhill rather quickly once people start talking about non-audiophile or less analytical cans.  I mean think about it.  The Grado guys here have more or less coalesced into their own crowd.  Sony cans are generally frowned upon.  Discussion of basshead cans are merely tolerated, and almost never encouraged.  Fashion is decided here by patterns of woodgrain and not colors of plastic.  Then you have Bose and Beats coming along trying to crash the party and all hell breaks loose.

They show up saying that they've mastered the science or art of sound, and the common man/woman simply accepts that out of ignorance.  Then Head-Fiers end up having to hear that marketing speak repeated back to them wherever they go.  And from time to time, someone [stupid] will show up here and say something about how Beats rock and sound better than anything else.  Its the kind of statement that Head-Fiers know will be said by a great many people somewhere out in the world.  But to bring that crap here is kind of the last straw for many a Head-Fier, and I can certainly understand that

Now, I'm not saying that I know all about Head-Fi and its body of members, but I did lurk for years before I joined, and posted almost nothing during my first year just so I could learn from those that know more than I.  And while I might be lacking a certain precision, I don't think the above is too far off the mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich 

Is this more about showing up your high school buddies, or somehow going on crusade because a given manufacturer or celebrity personally violated you in some way, or what am I missing?

Hey obobs, IMO the three biggest sins commited here are regarding price, priority and fraudulent claims.

Beats are priced at a point where they compete with mid-fi (and some hi-fi) cans.  This will naturally invite comparisons with cans that strive for better sound quality as opposed to better sales/revenue.  Unfortunately, these comparisons are made (increasingly as of late) by the average consumer.  In other words, people with limited listening experience and relatively untrained ears.  We're talking about the kind of people where louder = better.  We're also talking about the crowd that believes if it costs more, it must be that much better.  It's irrational I know, but some lights are just that dim.

Secondly, Beats cares more about how the cans look as opposed to how they sound.  Don't think this is true?  Take a look at what happened when someone else (Sony) put out cans with an incredibly similar sound signature (MDR-XB###).  Nothing happened, and Beats just ignored it.  But now try making cans that look like Beats and see how quickly Beats wants to sue the ever loving **** out of you.  They are taking a tool where the primary purpose is sound reproduction and making it about looks.  I'm a new Head-Fier, but even I can tell you how that tactic is an affront to the Head-Fi ethos on so many levels.

And lastly, they lie.  Not gonna repeat the lies here, but there are multiple threads about Beats' claims to audio superiority with rampant pseudoscience explanations.  I think that under the best of circumstances, these types of statements tend to irritate Head-Fiers.  But more often than not, the general public will blindly believe these statements and perpetuate them without thinking.  This simply pisses most Head-Fiers off (albeit to different degrees).  Clearly, WiR3D has heard a few of these statements and simply refuses to indulge people anymore.

I've never liked Beats for all of the above reasons.  Even with that initial disdain, I decided to try them out and owned both the Studios and SoloHDs at one point.  Both were returned - and to this day remain the only cans I have ever returned and not tried to acclimate myself to.  I don't know a thing about the Pros beyond a cursory listen, but I can tell you that I was not impressed.

I applaud HiFiGuy for taking what I feel is the most rational course of action here - subjecting himself to the Beats experience.  That's what I feel any rational person should do in order to form a valid opinion.  And in doing so, he does earn the credibility one needs to speak about Beats.  However, having already done that myself, I agree with WiR3D's assessment of Beats.

And for the record, I think WiR3D is trying to caution against a specific danger here - that being anything less than critical (like we should be with all of our cans) can cause a lot of damage.  Giving Beats and inch will result in their marketing taking the proverbial mile, and the next thing you know some idiot kid is gonna try and tell you that some dude on Head-Fi said they were good.  I could be way off about this WiR3D, and feel free to correct me if I am, but I think you're just trying to preach some vigilance here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warrenpchi 

 

Yeah well, we kind of knew it would though (hence my caution early on).  But we all know why this is so...

 

Head-Fi is one of the best havens for people that pursue fidelity, and high-fidelity at that.  The order of the day here is neutrality and transparency - the rendering of sound in the purest form possible via headphones.  As such, almost everything else takes a backseat.  What drives many a Head-Fier here is the longing to hear angels dancing on the head of a pin.  Actually, its more like hearing those angels catch their breath while they dance on the head of that pin.  And this longing is a seriously powerful drive here.  Anything that gets in the way of that is going to cause a bit of ire.  Coloration is accepted but not praised.  Comfort is grudingly considered somewhat essential, though still secondary to SQ.  Think about how many times people are advised to switch pads, stretch headbands, or mod cans before giving up on them for something more consumer oriented.

 

I personally love the typical AKG sound, but as much as I like the soundstage, I do end up having to qualify some of my remarks by mentioning that AKGs are "fun" cans - and not necessarily pure audiophile cans (at least not in the same vein as Senns, Audez'es, etc.).  And that's fine, I've gotten used to it.  But there is scorn for "lesser" (i.e. less analytical) cans here in these forums, and things tend to go downhill rather quickly once people start talking about non-audiophile or less analytical cans.  I mean think about it.  The Grado guys here have more or less coalesced into their own crowd.  Sony cans are generally frowned upon.  Discussion of basshead cans are merely tolerated, and almost never encouraged.  Fashion is decided here by patterns of woodgrain and not colors of plastic.  Then you have Bose and Beats coming along trying to crash the party and all hell breaks loose.

 

They show up saying that they've mastered the science or art of sound, and the common man/woman simply accepts that out of ignorance.  Then Head-Fiers end up having to hear that marketing speak repeated back to them wherever they go.  And from time to time, someone [stupid] will show up here and say something about how Beats rock and sound better than anything else.  Its the kind of statement that Head-Fiers know will be said by a great many people somewhere out in the world.  But to bring that crap here is kind of the last straw for many a Head-Fier, and I can certainly understand that

 

Now, I'm not saying that I know all about Head-Fi and its body of members, but I did lurk for years before I joined, and posted almost nothing during my first year just so I could learn from those that know more than I.  And while I might be lacking a certain precision, I don't think the above is too far off the mark.

 

 

Hey obobs, IMO the three biggest sins commited here are regarding price, priority and fraudulent claims.

 

Beats are priced at a point where they compete with mid-fi (and some hi-fi) cans.  This will naturally invite comparisons with cans that strive for better sound quality as opposed to better sales/revenue.  Unfortunately, these comparisons are made (increasingly as of late) by the average consumer.  In other words, people with limited listening experience and relatively untrained ears.  We're talking about the kind of people where louder = better.  We're also talking about the crowd that believes if it costs more, it must be that much better.  It's irrational I know, but some lights are just that dim.

 

Secondly, Beats cares more about how the cans look as opposed to how they sound.  Don't think this is true?  Take a look at what happened when someone else (Sony) put out cans with an incredibly similar sound signature (MDR-XB###).  Nothing happened, and Beats just ignored it.  But now try making cans that look like Beats and see how quickly Beats wants to sue the ever loving **** out of you.  They are taking a tool where the primary purpose is sound reproduction and making it about looks.  I'm a new Head-Fier, but even I can tell you how that tactic is an affront to the Head-Fi ethos on so many levels.

 

And lastly, they lie.  Not gonna repeat the lies here, but there are multiple threads about Beats' claims to audio superiority with rampant pseudoscience explanations.  I think that under the best of circumstances, these types of statements tend to irritate Head-Fiers.  But more often than not, the general public will blindly believe these statements and perpetuate them without thinking.  This simply pisses most Head-Fiers off (albeit to different degrees).  Clearly, WiR3D has heard a few of these statements and simply refuses to indulge people anymore.

 

I've never liked Beats for all of the above reasons.  Even with that initial disdain, I decided to try them out and owned both the Studios and SoloHDs at one point.  Both were returned - and to this day remain the only cans I have ever returned and not tried to acclimate myself to.  I don't know a thing about the Pros beyond a cursory listen, but I can tell you that I was not impressed.

 

I applaud HiFiGuy for taking what I feel is the most rational course of action here - subjecting himself to the Beats experience.  That's what I feel any rational person should do in order to form a valid opinion.  And in doing so, he does earn the credibility one needs to speak about Beats.  However, having already done that myself, I agree with WiR3D's assessment of Beats.

 

And for the record, I think WiR3D is trying to caution against a specific danger here - that being anything less than critical (like we should be with all of our cans) can cause a lot of damage.  Giving Beats and inch will result in their marketing taking the proverbial mile, and the next thing you know some idiot kid is gonna try and tell you that some dude on Head-Fi said they were good.  I could be way off about this WiR3D, and feel free to correct me if I am, but I think you're just trying to preach some vigilance here.

I was once told I was a god among men here, but I'm passing that title to you. You are completely right about everything you said about me. 

I just tried to cut out what was irrelevant from your post since I dislike big quotes, but everything you said has a valid point, and I agree fully.

On the fun thing, I do think our views differ, summit-fi guys tend to value the analytical sound, and I think years ago it was that or go home. But because of the previous Denon range, which are also fun cans, things have changed somewhat, I won't call AKGs fun, they are the mother of analytical, but they are coloured, in a very different way to the warmer and bassier sound that is associated with colouration.

But seriously this is my favourite post on head-fi, and trust me for an informative post to top some of Largemouth Bass's kooky comedic posts, its a real triumph. 

Bravo sir, bravo.

:applause:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiR3D 

On the fun thing, I do think our views differ, summit-fi guys tend to value the analytical sound, and I think years ago it was that or go home. But because of the previous Denon range, which are also fun cans, things have changed somewhat, I won't call AKGs fun, they are the mother of analytical, but they are coloured, in a very different way to the warmer and bassier sound that is associated with colouration.

And let's not forget the boomier-than-some-would-like LF response in some of their lo/mid fi stuff (which I personally rather enjoy).  Some would regard that as being a little loose with accuracy, but good for musicality.  But my main point there was simply that many a Head-Fier tends to like AKGs for their soundstage (and occasionally detail) and not necessarily for clarity or precision.  I'm not saying that AKGs are lesser in any way, just that they are typically discussed differently here than say an HD 650 (or above - including orthos/planars/electrostats). 

Just to revisit the Beats discussion for a moment, I'd like to add that I totally understand the basshead phenomenon.  There are times when my mood warrants or even requires a good thump session.  But IMO, for any pair of cans to be all about any given subset of audible frequencies - particularly when it comes at the expense of other frequencies in the form of severely recessed/muted mids - is just inexcusable.  In short, I can accept a certain amount of frequency emphasis, but not when frequency exclusion becomes a mandatory by-product.  At its most basic level, it is an artificial limit placed on what I should be hearing as determined by another.  And I personally don't respond well to that sort of thing.  I've had some interesting remarks said to me in person regarding this, including the charge that I just couldn't handle the bass.  I can't recall my response verbatim, but it was something along the lines of "no, I can handle the bass just fine.  It's the lack of everything else that gets to me."

Which brings me to the SoloHDs...  If I'm to be honest, I am thrilled that HiFiGuy found them to be dull and muffled.  I'm not necessarily a follow-the-herd type of personality.  But in a pastime as subjective as ours, the consensus of trained/experienced ears remains the best indicator of sound quality.  Had he described them differently, I would worry about the possible ramifications.  But as the case currently stands, he has vaildated - not only my personal experience - but the stated opinions of other members that I trust.  So @ HiFiGuy:  I'm glad you heard them for yourself, and I'm glad that you found them to be similarly substandard as I found them to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiR3D 

I was once told I was a god among men here, but I'm passing that title to you. You are completely right about everything you said about me. 

 

I just tried to cut out what was irrelevant from your post since I dislike big quotes, but everything you said has a valid point, and I agree fully.

 

But seriously this is my favourite post on head-fi, and trust me for an informative post to top some of Largemouth Bass's kooky comedic posts, its a real triumph. 

 

Bravo sir, bravo.

:applause:

Wow, some unexpectedly high praise indeed.  And to think, a few posts back I wasn't doing anything beyond contributing to bromance augmentation.    Lest I rekindle that bromance, I'll simply express some candid gratitude and say thank you for the kind words.  I do think that it will be quite some time before I can make quality posts with any degree of consistency though, I can be as irreverent as anyone.  So in the meantime, its probably better that I resist deification for now and let you continue to bear that burden.

On a side note, I think that lurking and learning are of great help in joining this community productively.  I would heartily recommend that approach to all serious new members.  As a result, my first post was not a new thread asking for a recommendation.  In addition, I've had obobskivich, HiFiGuy, and others on "follow" for some time now - not in an effort to stalk them or anything - but rather to learn from their expertise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich 

That having been said, I think that if we're going to set out to apply the above hypervigilance towards these products (on an unrelated note, I love how all of the random and senseless claims that were levied against Bose are now levied against Beats with the same indiscriminate disregard), we should apply it to all products. And I think that goes out the window when you're talking about something "popular." In other words, people will go on and on about how Beats are "fraudulent" (and I'd like to point out that this is a specific crime within the US, and it's just nonsense to cry fraud when you disagree with marketing, I'd also add that unless you have documented case filings, don't claim that a company "sues the hell out of everyone" - this is all public record, and usually it's fluff (people claimed the same thing about Bose, and it's patently untrue, because again, it's a simple matter of public record)) but more or less IGNORE similarly insane claims made by all sorts of "audiophile" companies (which in some (many?) cases do far worse). And that's where I see it as just senseless venting.

Okay, fair enough obobs.  I can see what you're saying, so lemme just add to and clarify some of what I was trying to say earlier.

In terms of what I said about fraudulent claims, I'd like to point out that Beats has made a habit of publicly stating that their cans "sound so good because they put back the quality lost in modern day file compression.  That means you're really hearing music the way it was originally heard by the artist in the studio."  The latter of those two statements is of course debatable.  But I do consider it highly unlikely that a majority of musicians, songwriters and quality producers would agree with that statement - particularly when we consider that hip hop and rap are not the only two genres in existence.

Now the former statement of the two is what really gets to me.    I come from a visual arts background, and one of the pet peeves of all commercial artists is being handed compressed, lossy media assets.  While there are certain tricks of the trade that we can apply (stepped upscaling with Genuine Fractals thrown in for example) that's still just data interpolation.  It may pass in certain circumstances, but it is nowhere near as desirable as better source material.  Once lossy compression has been applied, data is forever lost.  We simply cannot put it back in.  The same goes for digital audio as we all know.  I don't care how good a pair of cans might be, it's not putting anything back anywhere.  And if anything, better cans will reveal more flaws that it will ever "correct".  So in the sense that what they are saying lies outside the bounds of known science and existing technology, I would most certainly say that it is is fradulent by virtue of being practically impossible.  At best, we'd have to consider that statement to be the kind of wild and unsubstantiated supposition commonly professed by snake oil salesmen right?

As for Beats' litigious history, I can actually provide a reference for that:  http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/beats-by-dre-developers-file-lawsuit-against-1004136731.story.  I'm not suggesting that you waste too much time on it.  But if you were to read the actual filing, you'll note that their cause of action claims that Fanny Wang "willfully diluted Plaintiff's famous trade dress."  There is no mention of sound signatures or sound quality whatsoever.  And in fact, I have been unable to locate a case where Beats pursued someone for trying to duplicate their sound profile.  I'm generalizing in saying this, but entities tend to show their cards in terms of their priorities by the kind of legal action they take (e.g. spend money on).  From this is appears that they care quite a bit about looks.  Sound quality, er not so much.

As for Bose, most of the truly venomous vitriol hurled their way was before my time here.  But in most threads these days, I've noticed that the discussion tends to focus on their noise cancellation prowess and enduring comfort.  And since any and all claims about sound quality are few and far between, it doesn't seem to bother many Head-Fiers.  Beats are currently the whipping boy of choice because they persist in unabashedly making wild claims about their sound - and yes, because they are popular.  I'm not saying that people here are envious of Beats' success - just that they are irritated to a higher degree by the sheer quantity of Beats-related discussion.

Oh BTW, if you know of any examples of wild claims by audiophile companies, I'd love to read through them for s**ts and giggles.    I'm not sure why, but I get the distinct impression that I'd get more than a few laughs from them.  Plus it would give me a better perspective on the industry's past marketing efforts as a whole.

Wait? Monster isn't with Beats right? So why did you talk to the monster PR?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy528 

Very good comments here from everyone.
I do remember that Monster have sued a few companies for using the Monster name or designs. Heck, who could blame them for protecting what's theirs. Apple does the same thing. They sued a school with an Apple as a logo. The logo did not look like the Apple Inc. logo at all.
I know I am losing a lot of subscribers by doing these Beats unboxings and upcoming reviews, but I think it's worth it in the long run because I hope my reviews will help new members and old members in knowing the truth about the Beats brand products. Both good and bad. The fact that I bought all the products in the line with my own money, people can not say my reviews are skewed and any direction. It's my unbiased opinion. I'm not going to rush into the review because I want to truly spend some time with each headphones before making judgments. I hope members here will appreciate that.

IT is sad that you are losing sub scribbers but it really depends on what you are doing it for. The people that generally will go ape on beats usually watch the most video's and are starters so that kinda puts a hamper on things, but really. They are reviews.

Glad you are doing this! You have my support!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy528 

Very good comments here from everyone.
I do remember that Monster have sued a few companies for using the Monster name or designs. Heck, who could blame them for protecting what's theirs.

I don't blame them at all.  IP is IP is IP, and the whole defend-it-or-lose-it convention sucks.  But it is still very telling of where they place their emphasis if you know what I mean.

Relevant: http://www.head-fi.org/t/619494/this-just-in-beats-are-magical

I must admit...I consider those to be outright lies. For example... "Beats Pro: The headphone used to mix in every major studio."

Someone should give them a taste of their own medicine and sue them for false advertising.