partly the reason i feel that people find high end cans unappealing to them is the fact that most non audiophiles stock up with 128 kbps songs from itunes or some youtube rips (my friends do so) so when they take my headphones to test on their system they are unimpressed, when i hered my own pair through their system i was unimpressed too, beats just covers up the compression artifacts with their special magical feature of 'returning lost quality of mp3 compression' :D
im sorry that was just a joke, beats just covers and masks the artifacts by loading it with so much bass the people also think more bass impact means more energy means better sound quality,
on the other hand most high end cans are very picky about the music file quality being pumped through it, and will actually make beats sound better than $1000 flagships just because beats covers up the flaws while the flagship models just show you the flaws in the compression in utter most detail
128kbps is not as bad as one may think.....
and youtube could have quality audio too..... (though rarely found)
I'm sure there are some 128 vs 320 blind tests around the sound science thread you can try.
Though the point remains, they all sound the same with beats (not sure about pro, I haven't try them yet.)
Beats sounds better than 1k flagships because of bad audio file??
I'd have to disagree, my 1.3k CIEMs sounds better than beats even with 128kbps....
And since this thread is about marketing, Anyone heard of those "rocks" you put in your room to "improve" all your equipment's performance?
I thought the whole thing was just one major troll at first...
Edited by b1o2r3i4s5 - 7/29/12 at 12:03am