[beercanchicken]

I definitely understand and can respect that. If you can look past it somewhat, get the Matte Black. It’s the least in your face in the Beats lineup.

Yeah, those are the ones I'm looking at. Also happen to be the cheapest at the moment @ $219

 

[neil74]

I think that the Sony’s sound better but they do give off a fragile vibe. Mine have not developed the crack yet but there is the hint of a creak when used on the move.


I picked up the studio 3s at a great price and use them on commute every day, by comparison despite the cheap plastic construction they feel far more robust.


As I say think the Sony’s edge the sound but the Beats sound pretty good to me on both Android and iOS. YMMV

 

[beercanchicken]

I definitely understand and can respect that. If you can look past it somewhat, get the Matte Black. It’s the least in your face in the Beats lineup.

Reading back on this thread, it seems you and others really like the Solo3? Though I generally dislike on-ears, I didnt find the Solo3 uncomfortable and also found their sound better than expected. Plus, I feel the portableness of them would fall in line with what I'd be using Bluetooth headphones for in the first place....

 

[hifi80sman]

I was at Target the other day and gave these a listen. While I wasn't blown away by them, I thought they were more than respectable considering their reputation and as someone in the Apple ecosystem, the W1 chip is just too good. I'm currently looking for a pair of bluetooth headphones and at their current price point, I'm giving them strong consideration.

One thing to keep in mind, is when you try it out at Target, they are wired and AMPed. They will not sound as good wireless, so just keep that in mind whenever you test headphones out at the store. They are almost always AMPed with custom coloration to selected songs.

 

[hifi80sman]

Frankly, my biggest hesitation right now is branding. It's just something I dislike (across all realms of my life....clothing, etc.). It's why I initially tried the Sony 1000s (because they were the least "in your face") and while I didn't mind them, they did not play well with my Apple stuff, using the touch controls would randomly open programs like iTunes and stuff like that.

That's odd. I have the 1000XM2 and I never had an issue with any of the controls launching any program at all. I personally like the touch controls on the 1000XM2, which are one of better touch control implementations out there.

Reading back on this thread, it seems you and others really like the Solo3? Though I generally dislike on-ears, I didnt find the Solo3 uncomfortable and also found their sound better than expected. Plus, I feel the portableness of them would fall in line with what I'd be using Bluetooth headphones for in the first place....

The Solo3 sounds good. In fact, I feel they sound as good as they measure (https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/beats/solo3-wireless#comparison_2030), which is uncommon in today's wireless headphone market; I think they sound better than the Studio3. I would definitely go the route of the Solo3 if you are looking for a portable pair for work, the gym, etc. Even though they are on-ear, they are one of the better fitting on-ear headphones. Did I mention the gym? They work well there. You may even make some new friends that are also part of the "Beats Army". LOL!

 

[MICHAELSD]

One thing to keep in mind, is when you try it out at Target, they are wired and AMPed. They will not sound as good wireless, so just keep that in mind whenever you test headphones out at the store. They are almost always AMPed with custom coloration to selected songs.

The amp they use isn’t the best quality in the world, especially since I assume the signal is split to all the headphones on display. They sound better wireless imo. Beats uses a solid quality DAC/amp in its wireless headphones. But they’re active I believe so it shouldn’t make a huge difference.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Reading back on this thread, it seems you and others really like the Solo3? Though I generally dislike on-ears, I didnt find the Solo3 uncomfortable and also found their sound better than expected. Plus, I feel the portableness of them would fall in line with what I'd be using Bluetooth headphones for in the first place....

The Solo3 is the best-sounding modern Beats headphone in terms of a natural FR and high-quality imaging/low distortion. It’s funny because I used to be able to comfortably wear them but now I’ve found their on-ear design to become uncomfortable quickly. Too bad Studio3 didn’t utilize a refined FR that improved upon the Solo3 with better imaging and total harmonic distortion. Studio3 with its latest firmware update does sound quite good though for what it’s intended for, which is to be used as an ANC headphone. It does have a unique sound all its own.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Bottom line, Solo3 is a great overall headphone with a lot of strengths: fun sound signature with a natural mid-range, excellent imaging/low total harmonic distortion, incredible battery life, flawless wireless, etc. I’d love a larger version of the Solo3 that improves upon both its strengths and weaknesses. Studio3 is not that headphone.

However, it is admittedly more comfortable and I’ll probably find myself going with the more comfortable option next time around — whether that’s a truly wireless Beats headphone or a new Studio/Pro.

Solo3 and Studio3 each have their own unique pros and cons, which is why they’re priced similarly at most retailers. I could find reasons to recommend either headphone.

 

[Derek411]

I had a change of heat. Ignore my last post (don’t go back) I like the Beats brand. I still dislike the Solo 2’s. Very muddy sound. For a bring anywhere cans I like the EP’s, they have a balanced sound but...

I took the chance on a few month old set of Studio 3’s and I actually prefer them to my QC’s! I got them for a third of the new price. Win win!

 

[obsidyen]

I auditioned Shadow Grey Studio 3s at Apple Store but the sound is just too thick, there's no soundstage to speak of... I got AirPods for now. I am going to wait for that high end Apple wireless headphone.

 

[trellus]

A consumer should only have the RIGHT to return a product if it is faulty not if the buyer simply doesn't like it IMO.

You are purchasing not hiring the product nor borrowing it. An electronic shop like any other retailer is not in the business of lending goods on a try and return basis. Make damn sure the product is right for you and if it isn't then sell at a price loss to yourself. You have made the wrong decision, no one else is to blame, and be happy

I don't know how people have the gall to think these shenanigans are acceptable. The consumer pays in the long run. Maybe it's an American thing. An anathema to me anyway

At the end of the day if you want to avoid this situation it might be the case of choosing not to buy Beats (not the hardest of life's decisions by any means) or alternatively just wait a few months until they inevitably develop a genuine fault and Bob's your Uncle

Maybe you're right that it's an American thing, and if that's the case, it's baked into the pricing and retail models here.

I've purchased several dozen headphones over the last 3 years and only returned three in the entire time, to my recollection -- one was missing cables (so defective, essentially;, they were Onkyo on-ear headphones that used hard-to-find MMCX cables suitable for headphones rather than in-ears), and the other two I returned because they had what I judged were fatal flaws for me: one set were $250 JBL's I wanted desperately to keep but the clamp was so much that I couldn't bear it, and the other were $20 JVC's that were just plan awful sounding, and I returned them within an hour. Both were re-sold by the retailer as open-box returns, so they lost very little and someone got a better deal. I've purchased open-box headphones myself, and kept them.

I don't see that as an abuse of the system at all; it's simply abiding by the rules set by the retailer, and I didn't purchase any of my eventual returns with the intention of returning them at all. Generally, if I end up not liking a pair over the long term or simply not using them enough, I sell them, or give them away to someone who does like them and want them.

To get back to the topic of this thread, one reason I've never bought Beat Studios (I have bought two Solo models before) is because I've not been convinced they are better than alternatives in the same price range. I've tried them several times before at stores that have on-floor demo units, and while I've thought, they're "good," they just don't grab me. Hell, part of it is that I know if I bought them, I'd keep them (unless they were defective, of course) because they'd be "good enough" or else I'd sell them or give them away since I know many people who'd love to have them, and every time I've almost pulled the trigger, I instead spend the money on another pair of headphones to which I feel more strongly the pull of attraction, lol.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Maybe you're right that it's an American thing, and if that's the case, it's baked into the pricing and retail models here.

I've purchased several dozen headphones over the last 3 years and only returned three in the entire time, to my recollection -- one was missing cables (so defective, essentially;, they were Onkyo on-ear headphones that used hard-to-find MMCX cables suitable for headphones rather than in-ears), and the other two I returned because they had what I judged were fatal flaws for me: one set were $250 JBL's I wanted desperately to keep but the clamp was so much that I couldn't bear it, and the other were $20 JVC's that were just plan awful sounding, and I returned them within an hour. Both were re-sold by the retailer as open-box returns, so they lost very little and someone got a better deal. I've purchased open-box headphones myself, and kept them.

I don't see that as an abuse of the system at all; it's simply abiding by the rules set by the retailer, and I didn't purchase any of my eventual returns with the intention of returning them at all. Generally, if I end up not liking a pair over the long term or simply not using them enough, I sell them, or give them away to someone who does like them and want them.

To get back to the topic of this thread, one reason I've never bought Beat Studios (I have bought two Solo models before) is because I've not been convinced they are better than alternatives in the same price range. I've tried them several times before at stores that have on-floor demo units, and while I've thought, they're "good," they just don't grab me. Hell, part of it is that I know if I bought them, I'd keep them (unless they were defective, of course) because they'd be "good enough" or else I'd sell them or give them away since I know many people who'd love to have them, and every time I've almost pulled the trigger, I instead spend the money on another pair of headphones to which I feel more strongly the pull of attraction, lol.

The fact of the matter is that for Beats you still are paying a premium for the brand name. It’s like buying a Gucci product. You know the quality will be good, but you’re paying the premium for the brand. Thankfully Beats realizes this and frequently discounts its products. I don’t think the current ~ $200-$249 sale prices for the Studio3 are crazy at all for what it is. At $200 it’s a competent ANC headphone while at $349 it doesn’t do enough to justify its price.

What I’d like to see from Beats is more R&D into creating products with build quality and sound that match their price, so then they could sell closer to MSRP and be worthwhile. Studio3 was almost there if it wasn’t for the issues previously mentioned.

I will admit Beats knows how to create desireable products since whenever I see the Studio3 on store shelves or advertised online I want to buy it even though I’ve already been disappointed by its sound.

Side note: have you ever seen the boxes for the original Monster Beats? The hype/marketing makes it sound like they’re the best headphones you’ll ever listen to...

 

[trellus]

The fact of the matter is that for Beats you still are paying a premium for the brand name. It’s like buying a Gucci product. You know the quality will be good, but you’re paying the premium for the brand. Thankfully Beats realizes this and frequently discounts its products. I don’t think the current ~ $200-$249 sale prices for the Studio3 are crazy at all for what it is. At $200 it’s a competent ANC headphone while at $349 it doesn’t do enough to justify its price.

What I’d like to see from Beats is more R&D into creating products with build quality and sound that match their price, so then they could sell closer to MSRP and be worthwhile. Studio3 was almost there if it wasn’t for the issues previously mentioned.

I will admit Beats knows how to create desireable products since whenever I see the Studio3 on store shelves or advertised online I want to buy it even though I’ve already been disappointed by its sound.

Side note: have you ever seen the boxes for the original Monster Beats? The hype/marketing makes it sound like they’re the best headphones you’ll ever listen to...

I don’t remember seeing the boxes for the original Monster Beats, but I remember how early Beats headphones sounded and they were definitely not the best headphones available... quite the opposite. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the Solo 2 Wireless and bought them.

 

[MICHAELSD]

I don’t remember seeing the boxes for the original Monster Beats, but I remember how early Beats headphones sounded and they were definitely not the best headphones available... quite the opposite. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the Solo 2 Wireless and bought them.

You’ve gotta admit that Dr. Dre is a genius though. The marketing made it sound like Beats are the best on the market. Then you have the store demos that must have sounded impressive to the average consumer. Non-audiophiles are looking for BASS above all else so pummel then over the head with bass and they’re sure to buy.

I’ve heard some arguments that it’s exaggerated how bad Beats used to be, due in part to knockoffs being rampant. Also the very first Beats were tuned to make the heavily compressed music that the kids were listening to off of Limewire sound good. Part of the difference in tuning is due to the rise of streaming services and good quality music being widely available.

 

[Maukey]

You’ve gotta admit that Dr. Dre is a genius though. The marketing made it sound like Beats are the best on the market. Then you have the store demos that must have sounded impressive to the average consumer. Non-audiophiles are looking for BASS above all else so pummel then over the head with bass and they’re sure to buy.

I’ve heard some arguments that it’s exaggerated how bad Beats used to be, due in part to knockoffs being rampant. Also the very first Beats were tuned to make the heavily compressed music that the kids were listening to off of Limewire sound good. Part of the difference in tuning is due to the rise of streaming services and good quality music being widely available.

Exactly! I actually was a fan of the original Monster Beats by Dre Studio. They didn’t sound accurate, and they weren’t the best. But what they did do better than any headphone at the time was make portable, compressed music sound powerful, loud, and exciting. They were the first to do it. I remember listening to them for the first time thinking, it’s amazing that they didn’t need an amp to get this loud. They took the success of Bose’s ANC, and said we’re going to add our own, and we’re going to go in a completely different direction soundwise to the QC15s. Dre and Monster appealed more to the iPod, HipHop crowd with the look and sound of the headphone. It ended up being a major success despite the hate from “audiophiles”. It actually forced Bose to make slight tuning adjustments to their QC line to try and steal some of that market. Because of the success of Beats, other Audiophile branded companies begin making their own versions of fashion, portable headphones. Love or hate Beats, they changed the game.