[trellus]

I have the Beats Solo 2 Wireless and the Parrot Zik 2.0, and the sound quality difference between them isn't that big to me. The early Beats I heard sounded muddy and with bloated bass - just not good at all - but that's really not been the case at all for a few years now.

I think the bad rap against them on Head Fi is based on a legacy mindset that has lingered for years past the reality of today's Beats.

 

[obobskivich]

I have the Beats Solo 2 Wireless and the Parrot Zik 2.0, and the sound quality difference between them isn't that big to me. The early Beats I heard sounded muddy and with bloated bass - just not good at all - but that's really not been the case at all for a few years now.

I think the bad rap against them on Head Fi is based on a legacy mindset that has lingered for years past the reality of today's Beats.

My point wasn't really to compare Beats and Parrot in terms of SQ, but in terms of Parrot's more mature aesthetics and higher degree of wireless functionality (as in, if we're just talking ergonomics, the Zik are seriously cool headphones with their touch controls, app integration, etc). Frankly I was a bit surprised when I first heard about the Beats + Apple merger, specifically because Beats are so unbelievably garish, while Apple products in more recent years are significantly more subdued, like Parrot's products. Still, both companies are ultimately masters at taking $5, putting it in a box, and charging $39.95 for it, and actually getting it, so from that angle it makes complete sense.

Honestly I'd say the "bad rap" is still well earned - when they first came out I don't remember Head-Fi being up in arms over them, but the cheap build quality, chintzy looks, insane marketing claims, and (above all) abysmal price/performance absolutely deserves to take a bad rep. Remember: they want equivalent money to the Sennheiser HD 600, once considered one of the best dynamic headphones in the world (and still held by many as a top tier can) for something that performs on-par with maybe a $20 headphone you used to be able to buy in a supermarket, specifically because it has some rapper's face slapped on the side of it. Sure there's probably a degree of "hipster-ism" that's crept in, where "we" as enthusiasts dislike them because they're too "mainstream" or "popular," but ultimately I think if their performance, build, etc was up to snuff, that wouldn't be enough to warrant the continued disdain of the brand. And they (being Beats) frankly don't care that audiophiles and geeks hate them - they laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[trellus]

I've not heard a $20 pair of headphones that sounds as good and has as good a build quality and as a good of a design as my Solo 2 Wireless, and I've bought some el cheapo cans before.

The build quality, comfort, and design of my silver/grey Solo 2 Wireless is beyond any $20 can - it's not even close. There are no $20 Bluetooth headphones as comfortable and durable and with as good sound quality as the Solo 2 Wireless. (And I did have a $20 Bluedio T2 Wireless set of headphones to compare them against - a great value but SQ was definitely noticeably lower and build was far cheaper and looked much cheaper, too.)

I've always believed they are overpriced but not by that ridiculous of a margin - they're not $20 cans.

I think $199 for Solo 3 Wireless would be a good price (the insane 40 hour battery life), and $149 for Solo 2 Wireless would be a good price (basically same headphones as Solo 3 but with 12 hour battery life and no W1 chip).

 

[trellus]

But I do agree that the Sennheiser HD 600 are obviously much, much better for the same price. Of course, they're not at all targeted to the same audience, being open back, not wireless, and requiring an amp - they're for a completely different usage scenario.

I don't listen to Beats when I'm at my desk - I listens to my HD 600, it's not even close:

 

[obobskivich]

I've not heard a $20 pair of headphones that sounds as good and has as good a build quality and as a good of a design as my Solo 2 Wireless, and I've bought some el cheapo cans before.

The build quality, comfort, and design of my silver/grey Solo 2 Wireless is beyond any $20 can - it's not even close. There are no $20 Bluetooth headphones as comfortable and durable and with as good sound quality as the Solo 2 Wireless. (And I did have a $20 Bluedio T2 Wireless set of headphones to compare them against - a great value but SQ was definitely noticeably lower and build was far cheaper and looked much cheaper, too.)

I've always believed they are overpriced but not by that ridiculous of a margin - they're not $20 cans.

I think $199 for Solo 3 Wireless would be a good price (the insane 40 hour battery life), and $149 for Solo 2 Wireless would be a good price (basically same headphones as Solo 3 but with 12 hour battery life and no W1 chip).

The $20 comment was targeted at the original Beats (especially the original Solo and Studio). The newer ones are "better" but I would view that as "only just enough to minimize warranty claims and people being mad at them breaking." They've never matched (or even approached, imho) the build or performance of what a $300-500 headphone should be. As far as inexpensive cans that best them in sound quality, the Koss KTX-Pro, PortaPro, and R/80 are all superior imho.

But I do agree that the Sennheiser HD 600 are obviously much, much better for the same price. Of course, they're not at all targeted to the same audience, being open back, not wireless, and requiring an amp - they're for a completely different usage scenario.

I certainly get that they have "different target markets" but my point is they wanted what was basically flagship money for entry level (or below) performance. Bose was already taking a pretty aggressive beating for asking $299 for QuietComfort, but could always hide behind "but the ANC..." and the Sennheiser/Grado/Beyerdynamic/AKG/etc audiophile crowd didn't really have much to retort with. However that only works because the ANC actually delivers on its premise, and the overall sound quality is "good enough." Beats couldn't even deliver a product that was competitive on that level (and imho never has), and while they've made a lot of squawk about wireless and smartphone connectivity and so forth, Bose and Sony have easily matched them in terms of non-audio features (even if the new QuietComfort is trying to steal your identity ), while still delivering a more superior product from an audio performance perspective, at the same price (and when this new "Studio 3.0" launches, they will officially be asking more money than QuietComfort for inferior performance - when you can price Bose into the "value option" role you have seriously done something wrong).

 

[trellus]

The $20 comment was targeted at the original Beats (especially the original Solo and Studio). The newer ones are "better" but I would view that as "only just enough to minimize warranty claims and people being mad at them breaking." They've never matched (or even approached, imho) the build or performance of what a $300-500 headphone should be. As far as inexpensive cans that best them in sound quality, the Koss KTX-Pro, PortaPro, and R/80 are all superior imho.

It's not just the build quality that has improved (and it has improved noticeably, because I fully agree that the early Beats had absolutely s***** build), but the SQ is substantially better.

I love the PortaPro, but they're open headphones and that's also why I love them because I prefer open headphones - much more natural sounding to my ears, but the only reason I find their SQ better than the Solo 2 is because of their openness, which makes them sound more spacious. But some use cases, again, call for better isolation and less sound leakage, so that's when I go for closed cans.

But as far as detail retrieval and clarity, the Solo 2 are on par or even exceed the PortaPro.

I think where they continue to deserve some ridicule is that they are definitely overpriced - but they're not $20 cans, not even close.

The only reason, ironically, I got mine was to have them as a sound signature reference to test cheaper headphones so when my friends asked me for recommendations on headphones I could steer them *away* from Beats, lol, and I still do generally because for the price, there are, in fact better options IMO.

(Some people like the Beats sound so I wanted to have them to compare to cheaper cans with a similar sound signature.)

 

[trellus]

I certainly get that they have "different target markets" but my point is they wanted what was basically flagship money for entry level (or below) performance. Bose was already taking a pretty aggressive beating for asking $299 for QuietComfort, but could always hide behind "but the ANC..." and the Sennheiser/Grado/Beyerdynamic/AKG/etc audiophile crowd didn't really have much to retort with. However that only works because the ANC actually delivers on its premise, and the overall sound quality is "good enough." Beats couldn't even deliver a product that was competitive on that level (and imho never has), and while they've made a lot of squawk about wireless and smartphone connectivity and so forth, Bose and Sony have easily matched them in terms of non-audio features (even if the new QuietComfort is trying to steal your identity ), while still delivering a more superior product from an audio performance perspective, at the same price (and when this new "Studio 3.0" launches, they will officially be asking more money than QuietComfort for inferior performance - when you can price Bose into the "value option" role you have seriously done something wrong).

I've actually not heard the Studio except a few times at in-store displays, and I wasn't impressed with the ANC, it was far less effective than the Bose QuietComfort 25 or 35, and while I didn't have my Parrot Zik at the time, from memory, it's not even as good as the Zik, which are the best ANC cans I own.

I agree with you that they are overpriced and underperform at their asking price, I just don't think they are as bad as audiophiles seem to think.

 

[Whitigir]

Here is something to get excited for

Beats by Dre

Literally

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-critics-called-new-NWA-film-whitewashed.html

'I deeply regret what I did and I'm working to be a better man': Dr Dre issues public apology to the three women he beat after critics called new N.W.A film whitewashed

 

[obobskivich]

I've actually not heard the Studio except a few times at in-store displays, and I wasn't impressed with the ANC, it was far less effective than the Bose QuietComfort 25 or 35, and while I didn't have my Parrot Zik at the time, from memory, it's not even as good as the Zik, which are the best ANC cans I own.

I agree with you that they are overpriced and underperform at their asking price, I just don't think they are as bad as audiophiles seem to think.

I've tried a wide range of ANC headphones (the big notable pink elephant in the room are the newest Sony 1000X) and frankly nothing has lived up to the Bose QC line IME. The Zik were "decent" and offered heaps of ergonomic features that Bose (or anyone else) don't have, so it seems like an okay trade-off. Beats Studio frankly didn't sound like they offered any isolation, and the build was just...awful (and you also get that constant hiss from the ANC circuit working - yuck). My understanding, and this is pieced together from a few interviews Noel Lee has given since the Monster break-up, and some reviews/articles I've read on ANC cans, is that in the modern day if you want to release an ANC headphone, you're basically stuck, because Bose and Sony own (and aggressively defend) a lot of patents that cover quality ANC implementations (and they aren't for sale), so you can either go out and develop your own non-infringing solution at massive cost, or just pick up something cheap (and probably not very good) to be able to advertise "look, we do ANC too - we're like everyone else!" From what I understand, Beats basically took the later route as Monster lacked the R&D resources to undertake something as elaborate as the QuietComfort or any of Sony's higher end offerings. This kind of "we just went with what we could OEM cheap out of China" mentality basically permeated the entire Beats design process - they took a product design sketch and filled it up with hardware coming from the land of "I saved your job" and went to market. So it isn't really surprising the final product was junk. But they had a great marketing and PR campaign that shoved it down everyone's throat in a way that had (as far as I know) never been done with headphones, and companies like Bose and Sony were left standing there going "what just happened?"

They have no real onus to appeal to serious listeners or audiophiles because they just "market around" all of the product's issues. They've done it for years now, and I doubt Apple will bring any significant changes to that - sure it'll add more iOS integration and the design might become less chintzy, but expect significant price increases if that's the case. And audio performance is still a distant thought. They know they don't need it to succeed, and Apple knows they can probably pick literally any other headphone maker on the planet (like B&W, Bose, NAD, Audeze, etc) and offer them a spot in the Apple Store and they can sell a "hi-fi" solution for more discerning/picky customers.

As far as "are they as bad as audiophiles seem to think" - I'm not going to say they gave me cancer or killed my dog because I listened to them, but frankly I didn't like what I was hearing not just along the lines of "this isn't my taste" or "this isn't good" but further to "I am not enjoying my music, at all." And that's a big problem. I've heard plenty of inexpensive or cheap headphones (and speakers) over the years, and usually can still enjoy favorite albums or songs simply because I like the music, but frankly Beats have never been able to even deliver that. Maybe at $400 the new Studio 3 will get to that point, but frankly at $400 it would need to displace the HD 600/650 and K701 to be worthy of consideration. As far as "but the ANC" you've got Bose and Sony standing there with significantly more robust solutions (and now at lower price points), and IEMs really should be part of any discussion about mobility too. I just don't see any redeeming qualities unless they could, by some stroke of magic, actually deliver on the first post's premise - bringing sound quality up to the level of Sennheiser or AKG high end cans, ANC that knocks Bose or Sony out, and mobility/integration features that knock Parrot out, but frankly I don't see Apple or Beats having any incentive to roll up their sleeves and get to work on that kind of product, when they know they can just re-package low-fi junk and the teeny boppers will still be beating down their door to buy it.

 

[trellus]

As far as "are they as bad as audiophiles seem to think" - I'm not going to say they gave me cancer or killed my dog because I listened to them, but frankly I didn't like what I was hearing not just along the lines of "this isn't my taste" or "this isn't good" but further to "I am not enjoying my music, at all." And that's a big problem. I've heard plenty of inexpensive or cheap headphones (and speakers) over the years, and usually can still enjoy favorite albums or songs simply because I like the music, but frankly Beats have never been able to even deliver that. Maybe at $400 the new Studio 3 will get to that point, but frankly at $400 it would need to displace the HD 600/650 and K701 to be worthy of consideration. As far as "but the ANC" you've got Bose and Sony standing there with significantly more robust solutions (and now at lower price points), and IEMs really should be part of any discussion about mobility too. I just don't see any redeeming qualities unless they could, by some stroke of magic, actually deliver on the first post's premise - bringing sound quality up to the level of Sennheiser or AKG high end cans, ANC that knocks Bose or Sony out, and mobility/integration features that knock Parrot out, but frankly I don't see Apple or Beats having any incentive to roll up their sleeves and get to work on that kind of product, when they know they can just re-package low-fi junk and the teeny boppers will still be beating down their door to buy it.

Well, certainly, SQ is subjective, but I definitely enjoy my music on Beats Solo 2, they have a clean, detailed, fun V-shaped sound. I've heard headphones that I genuinely can't enjoy my music on - early Beats headphones and some awful rapper-endorsed Sol Republic over ears that were such an extremely bass-heavy and bloated sonic mess that I took them off after about 5 seconds of horror at an in-store display.

Having said that, I agree with you on ANC - every time I go into Fry's Electronics, I put those wonderful pillows on my ears called the QC35, and hear the drone of the store just absolutely disappear. Ditto for the MDR1000X, those have great ANC. I would be very surprised if Apple improves ANC even to the level below those two (Sennheiser or lower Sony models with ANC, such as the ZX770BN, which I have.)

And as for sound quality, I much prefer Sennheiser (I have several Senn HP's, HD 600 and HD 650, and incoming HD 700 to be delivered tomorrow, as well as Momentum and Ubranite in both over ear and on ear variants) and I even have some AKG SR5BT on ear wireless headphones that are definitely superior to the Beats Solo 2 (more neutral, better resolving) and are my goto on-ear wireless headphones - better SQ and MSRP is $199, and I paid $99 on sale at Fry's which was ridiculously great.

To me, the Solo 2 (and I suspect the Studio, although I've only heard them briefly in-store) aren't bad, just not great, and they are overpriced.

 

[Shawnb]

They are Beats, enough said.

 

[MICHAELSD]

But I do agree that the Sennheiser HD 600 are obviously much, much better for the same price. Of course, they're not at all targeted to the same audience, being open back, not wireless, and requiring an amp - they're for a completely different usage scenario.

I don't listen to Beats when I'm at my desk - I listens to my HD 600, it's not even close:

The Solo3 are perfect headphones for portable use and especially the gym. When I'm out and about away from my desk, I'm rocking the Solo3 and when I'm at my desk like now I'm listening to the Momentum 2.0 Wireless... usually with a wire.

If Beats Studio 3.0 outperforms the Momentum with both a wire and wirelessly then it'll be a definite buy for me. I guess we'll see if they're planning on releasing mid-fi overpriced junk or high-end $400-$500wireless headphones. They'll have a sizable advantage with the W1 chip.

 

[329161]

Beats are great for what they are, and they obviously appeal a great deal to many people, but to compare them to something like the HD800 is a bit much. Just saying.

 

[wnmnkh]

Beats are great for what they are, and they obviously appeal a great deal to many people, but to compare them to something like the HD800 is a bit much. Just saying.

No, I don't think anyone here is trying to compare Beats to Sennheiser HD800. The biggest issue with Beats is that its headphones are simply utterly noncompetitive against pretty much any other headphones that are available in same price range AND lower.

The cold hard truth is that Beats headphones are even worse than Bose headphones (not just ANC capabilities), and before Beats were coming it was Bose being bashed at Head-Fi all the time.

Say, Koss SP330 is far better headphones than Solo2 and it is 80 dollars cheaper. Only difference is that Koss sadly does not have huge marketing budget like Monster and Apple does. Not to mention many other untold headphones.

It is shame that Head-Fi community really does not pay much attention to cheap headphones, where they actually cover the most crucial demographics in market.

 

[wnmnkh]

The $20 comment was targeted at the original Beats (especially the original Solo and Studio). The newer ones are "better" but I would view that as "only just enough to minimize warranty claims and people being mad at them breaking." They've never matched (or even approached, imho) the build or performance of what a $300-500 headphone should be. As far as inexpensive cans that best them in sound quality, the Koss KTX-Pro, PortaPro, and R/80 are all superior imho.

I am so glad you mention this particular Koss model. I really wish people would pay attention to companies that actually deserve their money....