[moosegang]

Quote:

Quote:

The problem I was referring to is only relevant if they want to be taken seriously by the minority who are truly interested in how they sound, and I don't know if they care or if they're just trying to make a buck, in which case whatever I think is irrelevant.

 
 
If so, who cares what they look like or what the other products in the line are? Why do you care at all about Skullcandy's brand vibe, or that they have Hello Kitty cans?
 
I think your original post just shows the flip side of the problem: You think "the brand in itself is such a huge turn-off" without taking into consideration that the "brand itself" exists for you only in your head. "The problem" you describe is your problem. The problem I have with that is that it's an indicator of audiophile snobbery essentially. I have no problem with personal taste, but when it extends out of your personal realm and gets passed around as a sort of "group think" it's really just a form of elitism. A true headphone enthusiast would be enthusiastic about good headphones ... even if it isn't to their taste. This Skullcandy introduction is remarkable and good for the (sonic) good health of the headphone market.
 
And, sorry, I'm not really ranting at you, I'm trying to point out to the group that it's a very good idea to give every maker a fair shake and cudos when they produce something good.
 
Ever hear the Sennheiser "Bionetic" series cans of about 8 years ago? Holy smoke they stunk. Point is, even the "Lexus/Mercedes" brands screw the pooch every now and then; and I would never just assume because it had a good nameplate it sounded good as well.
 
Anyway, I think this move by Skullcandy is very relevant. It's an indicator that there is a connection between making/selling cheap plastic junk and gear that delivers a better experience at a higher price point, and companies can travel that road.  The fact that Skullcandy is doing it legitimises the opportunity for upward movement of enthusiastic headphone listeners in the broad market.  That's a damn good thing in my book.
 
Way better than the road they'll travel with the Monster brand.  I wish they'd get their act together.
 
I talked to the Skullcandy design team in the booth for about an hour, and it's clear to me that they knew what they were doing when they put "art" on the outside of their cheap cans to attract the kids and gain big sales numbers; now they're demonstrating that they're also interested in the art going on inside their cans.
 
 
 
 
 

took the words right out of my mouth. To a true audiophile a good headphone is a good headphone disregarding what brand or logo is on it. If I slapped on the Skull Candy logo on a pair of Shure, Audio Techinica, Ultrasone, etc would it still be garbage? probably here at headfi

 

[Deep Funk]

I might audition the new Skullcandy when I get the chance... Still, that does not take away  my disliking for how some 'headphone' manufacturers market and present them self. And when I start reasoning like that I have to come to the conclusion that impressions can be misguiding so you just have to give the individual products a chance if you want to be sure about the individual product. 
 
I never guessed I would prefer a Pioneer headphone more than an AKG flagship headphone at the time. A good product is a good product but after that you have to question your self: is it worth the price? 
 

 

[LizardKing1]

I tested a big range of cheap "teen" headphones... the least bad ones were some by Roxy, a popular teenage clothing company. Even better than bad headphone companies, that nevertheless exist to produce headphones!

 

[coconutboy]

It's not uncommon to see blingy, trendy or budget-oriented manufacturers establish brand recognition with the teen/20-something crowd, and then as time goes by and business booms, expand into pricier products aimed at the older crowd and their fatter wallets.  It'll be interesting to see if anything Skullcandy can compete.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

regarding skull candy sound quality i heard a friend of mines skull candy low riders today and i actually didn't mind the sound. it didn't distort and it was clear. but it felt tinny and muddy. and it would fall off your head way to easily. but the build quality looked atrocious and apparently they were 2 years old.

 

[MDR30]

This schoolcandy business doesn't interest me that much, apart from the fact that they're already building a defense for a diminishing market. It's the Spice Girls phenomenon. The teenagers who bought schoolcandy because it's the most awsome stuff and hippest thing to own (what a splendid accessoir to their shiny white iPods & iPhones!) soon grow up and look back with embarrassment at those toy-like headphones - schoolcandy is the last thing they want to be identified with.
 
And as one generation is growing older, a new one enters, and they are not interested in oldfashioned and outdated paraphernalia - because it's old. That's the fashion and style generation cycle. Hence the failure of the Spice Girls' comeback - the younger sister is not interested in what her older sibling once liked, ages ago, and the bigger is just running for shelter.
 
One thing is certain, a new brand to replace schoolcandy will soon appear, mark my words.
 
But that's an aside. I only wrote because of one word in a previous post: “Bionetic”. It was the venerable Mr Tyll Hertsens who mentioned it in not too favourable terms:
 
“Ever hear the Sennheiser “Bionetic” series cans of about 8 years ago? Holy smoke they stunk. Point is, even the "Lexus/Mercedes" brands screw the pooch every now and then; and I would never just assume because it had a good nameplate it sounded good as well.”
 
I recently put new pads (thicker and firmer) on my HD590, the wonderfully comfortable and stylish bionetic flagship, and ran it through both transistor and tube amps. It’s been dormant for quite a few years, but it started singing with a lovely voice: airy, detailed and seductive. No acoustic odour whatsoever. Sometimes scapegoats are redeemed by history. Time for a reacquaintance with a proper perspective and objective mind, Mr Hertsens?
 

 

[monterto]

Quote:

This schoolcandy business doesn't interest me that much, apart from the fact that they're already building a defense for a diminishing market. It's the Spice Girls phenomenon. The teenagers who bought schoolcandy because it's the most awsome stuff and hippest thing to own (what a splendid accessoir to their shiny white iPods & iPhones!) soon grow up and look back with embarrassment at those toy-like headphones - schoolcandy is the last thing they want to be identified with.
 
And as one generation is growing older, a new on enters, and they are not interested in oldfashioned and outdated paraphernalia - because it's old. That's the fashion and style generation cycle. Hence the failure of the Spice Girls' comeback - the younger sister is not interested in what her older sibling once liked, ages ago, and the bigger is just running for shelter.
 
One thing is certain, a new brand to replace schoolcandy will soon appear, mark my words.
 
But that's an aside. I only wrote because of one word in a previous post: “Bionetic”. It was the venerable Mr Tyll Hertsens who mentioned it in not too favorable terms:
 
“Ever hear the Sennheiser “Bionetic” series cans of about 8 years ago? Holy smoke they stunk. Point is, even the "Lexus/Mercedes" brands screw the pooch every now and then; and I would never just assume because it had a good nameplate it sounded good as well.”
 
I recently put new pads (thicker and stiffer) on my HD590, the wonderfully comfortable and stylish bionetic flagship, and ran it through both transistor and tube amps. It’s been dormant for quite a few years, but it started singing with a lovely voice: airy, detailed and seductive. No acoustic odour whatsoever. Sometimes scapegoats are redeemed by history. Time for a reacquaintance with a proper perspective and objective mind, Mr Hertsens?
 

 
I really like this post.

 

[Kiiskinen]

Quote:

took the words right out of my mouth. To a true audiophile a good headphone is a good headphone disregarding what brand or logo is on it. If I slapped on the Skull Candy logo on a pair of Shure, Audio Techinica, Ultrasone, etc would it still be garbage? probably here at headfi

Not garbage, no. But I'd still take the Shure, AT, Ultrasone, etc. headphones over the rebranded ones, which is what I've been saying all along.
 
Why take SkullCandy when you can get a pair of great headphones from any of the aforementioned brands for a similar or lower price?
 
I rest my case.

 

[keanex]

So much outright hate here. I don't care at all for Skullcandy myself, but good for them for, seemingly, making decently priced products finally that don't look terrible.

 

[Deep Funk]

Hate is not the right word, scepticism suits this thread better. Call it 'deep scepticism'.
 
Unless you really auditioned a headphone you will always take a gamble if you want to purchase it. That is it really and if you solely rely on impressions/opinions from Head-Fi or from where ever the same principle still holds true. If you can really audition a headphone with different music, amplifiers, DACs etcetera you are better off. 

 

[dweaver]

My only problem with Skullcandy is their skull logo. I simply can't stand having skulls on everything and they also bother my son, which is to bad because I do suspect these will sound good. I may try these out anyway and just figure a way to cover up the skulls.

 

[dub Beatz]

I've seen quite a few kids around campus now wearing the aviators. To be entirely honest, they're relatively low profile. Not flashy, and the skull logo isn't visible unless you get up close. If you want to, you can paint over it.

 

[roma101]

I still think they're the most beautiful cans I've ever seen. That price just really needs to go down though before I ever purchase them.

 

[Thecoolguy]

personally, i think these  look pretty ugly, though better looking than the other skullcandy's at least

 

[roma101]

personally, i think these  look pretty ugly, though better looking than the other skullcandy's at least

 


Lol well beauty is in the eye of the beholder indeed.