[AhokZYashA]

dont get anything from monster..
of you want bass.. get the M50..
much better.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

So how exactly would you describe the sound signature of those Beats Pro. I read comments of the Monster products daily but I yet haven't been able to read any description. Despite the Beats are like the most brought up headphones in this forum and every1 trashing them, I have yet not even seen any1 trying to even describe the sound like you see people do with other headphones. Are these warm or laid-back, are the highs fairly bright or smooth, are the mids very recessed or forward?
 
I don't have any place to try these like you americans over there have Best Buy for example and I certainly wouldn't just blindly order any product of Monster company especially at such outrageos prices but it would be nice to know how they sound like at least to know what all these kids are missing out on. Why any1 would care to run a headphone that require batteries to work is beyond me though, at least Pro doesn't need any batteries.

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

@Anaxilus
 
I think it was the source. When I tried out the Beats Pro, the source was hidden inside a box, so I couldn't actually see what it was. However, it was easily louder and more powerful then just a plain-old ipod touch 

 
perhaps they have some sort of EQ under there, compression sounds good to the average consumer (from reports, people who are used to mp3's actually prefer mp3's over flac etc etc) but to me, they sounded really off

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

In what way did they sound off?

 

[Ishcabible]

Quote:

Is it the phones or the source though?  Obviously the display is being targeted as a marketing device.  Nowadays compression sells, in more ways than one.

 
It's the phones. Tried a friend's (Don't yell at me for not converting him...we hadn't met until recently.) and they still sounded generally the same.
 
Quote:

dont get anything from monster..
of you want bass.. get the M50..
much better.

 
The M50's are overhyped ime. They're good for what they are, but seriously, they're praised like what seems like they're the universal solution. They most certainly aren't in their price range. For classical and jazz they're less than ideal.

 
Quote:

So how exactly would you describe the sound signature of those Beats Pro. I read comments of the Monster products daily but I yet haven't been able to read any description. Despite the Beats are like the most brought up headphones in this forum and every1 trashing them, I have yet not even seen any1 trying to even describe the sound like you see people do with other headphones. Are these warm or laid-back, are the highs fairly bright or smooth, are the mids very recessed or forward?
 
I don't have any place to try these like you americans over there have Best Buy for example and I certainly wouldn't just blindly order any product of Monster company but it would be nice to know how they sound like at least.

I'll try to make this as short as possible. This was with them plugged into my (very warm, flat EQ) Sony A726
Bass: Okay, so this was the main beef with the original Beats. There's less muddy, bloated bass on these, but it's still kind of uncontrolled and one-note. And bass drums sound digitalized. Their decay and timbre needs improvement. It doesn't really protrude much into the mids though.
Mids: These...are weird. They're forward compared to the Beats, but incredibly colored. Compared to the K271s (my baseline in closed headphone mids) they sound etched and geared for loudness more than anything. Vocals sounded artificial and overly bright.
Treble: The treble was...equally strange. Again, geared for loudness. It's colored in a way I've never heard a headphone colored before. It's tiring, harsh, and lacked sparkle. It wasn't Grado harsh either. It's really something you need to hear yourself. There wasn't too much sibilance though. Although my source tends to smooth over sibilance.
Soundstage: It was actually respectable, for a closed headphone. It lacked depth though. Left to right was fine. Placement was a bit off though.
 
They were comfy though. Probably get a bit sweaty after a while. The sound signature truly is quite weird. It gives the impression of being balanced, maybe a slight V curve, but at the same time, it sounds so overly colored that it's hard to take it seriously. They're good fun though. If they were $150 I'd be tempted to buy them as beater phones.

 

[afinch1992]

I wouldn't get the beats pro. the beyer dt770s would be better and cost about $50 less. Even cheaper are the m50s and m-audio q40s. I personally have the q40s and have been very pleased with their performance. I got mine used, so they were a bit cheaper than normal, but they can be had for around 100 (about the same as m50s). You could get any of the 3 pairs and get an amp for the same as the half priced pros. Think that the dt770s would be your best option tho, as they are bass monsters, just like the beats. The q40s are slightly behind in bass (but will still blow your mind) and the m50s have the least bass of the 3 (but again, more than enough for lots of bassheads). Or if you can you could go with the turbines. They are great in-ears

 

[AhokZYashA]

in terms of bass, the IEMs cant be compared directly to a headphone..
 
i think the solo have bigger bass than the m50, but it drowned everything
 
and yeah, the M50 is not suitable for classical..
but it does a good job for the other genre.

 

[BluFalcon]

Quote:

dont get anything from monster..
of you want bass.. get the M50..
much better.

As much as I enjoy listening to my ATH-M50s I would still consider picking up the Beats Pro.  They're fun sounding headphones.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

[Ishcabible]

Quote:

in terms of bass, the IEMs cant be compared directly to a headphone..
 
i think the solo have bigger bass than the m50, but it drowned everything
 
and yeah, the M50 is not suitable for classical..
but it does a good job for the other genre.

I disagree, but meh.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Quote:

in terms of bass, the IEMs cant be compared directly to a headphone..
 
i think the solo have bigger bass than the m50, but it drowned everything
 
and yeah, the M50 is not suitable for classical..
but it does a good job for the other genre.

I disagree, but meh.

Ditto.  The M50 also does a wonderful job w/ smaller classical acoustic performances.  I assume you are referring to larger orchestral sets demanding a wider soundstage.

 

[aCanadianDude]

NO!!
I bought them yesterday at that price and returned them today for XB500's.... SOOO much better!

 

[AhokZYashA]

XB500 is better because it has bigger bass..
not better bass..
 

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

XB500 is better because it has bigger bass..
not better bass..
 

personally, for me, i think the XB500's have better bass than the monsters, it manages to remain clear most of the time though they can get out of hand

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I always find it funny when people talking about what's "better bass"? Depending on who you will ask you'll get 10 different answers. Distortion is one thing that probably every1 agrees is a bad thing but beyond that it's pretty much up to people's prefers what's "better". 

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

I always find it funny when people talking about what's "better bass"? Depending on who you will ask you'll get 10 different answers. Distortion is one thing that probably every1 agrees is a bad thing but beyond that it's pretty much up to people's prefers what's "better". 

could just copy and pasted your signature...but it's mostly agreed, audiophiles whether bass heads, treble head, mid heads, pot hea....errr nevermind the last ones, like some form of clarity