[kyuuketsuki]

They don't seem all that bad from pictures... I remember seeing them on the streets once and not realizing they were Skullcandy and looking pretty decent, albeit a bit big. Really though, they aren't bad looking, but certainly not my style. I can't see myself wearing them, unless they sound outrageously amazing. Which I can imagine them sounding good, but not good enough for me to wear out.

 

[paulcorri]

Hi,
 
Looks  like my vintage Murdock shortwave phones!

 

[nugget275]

Quote:

The thing is though, at that price range you have TONS of options. TONS of competition, from brands that have already secured their place at the top. For a 'new' brand to join them up there, they'd have to pull off something amazing and then some. I don't think it's about what they sound like all that much, it's about why anyone would choose Skullcandy over, say, Grado, Sennheiser, beyer...
 
If you had 100k€ to spend on a car, would you rather spend it on a 100k€ Merc, BMW, Audi, Aston etc. or a 100k€ Lada (if Lada had a model that expensive), Skoda...?
 
Of course it's the right direction, but I personally can't get over the whole gimmicky image they've created -- and the logo is just plain embarrassing, even though the Aviators do look nice.

 
So you're going buy only from certain brands, regardless of what options (better or worse) anyone else has to offer? Sounds like fanboyism to me.
I really don't think it matters that it's Skullcandy though as apposed to some more "prestigious" brand. You're supposed to buy good products, and the quality of a brand may not always show through in a product and vice versa.

 

[Slumdog]

wow the aviators are really nice... anyone seen them in Canada?

 

[Kiiskinen]

Quote:

So you're going buy only from certain brands, regardless of what options (better or worse) anyone else has to offer? Sounds like fanboyism to me.
I really don't think it matters that it's Skullcandy though as apposed to some more "prestigious" brand. You're supposed to buy good products, and the quality of a brand may not always show through in a product and vice versa.

 
Do you really believe that -- considering build quality sound quality and overall value -- what Skullcandy has to offer is better than what the big 'audiophile' brands have to offer at that price range? Remember, HD-25-1 II's, for example, can be had at about that price.
 
If the Aviators are just plain better than any other headphones at that price range, then sure they are a great buy, even if the brand is notorious for being... well, unreliable to say the least. If they are not, which I suspect is the case after reading some user reviews and such, then why in the world would I or ANYONE buy them? Isn't buying the products that are the best value for money the most level headed/anti-fanboy -like thing to do?
 
Buying them even though there are better options at that price range sounds like fanboyism to me -- or willful ignorance.
 
IF the Aviators are the best headphones for that money then I have nothing against them. Are they? Are Skullcandy Aviators now the absolute best headphones one can buy for 150€ or whatever they cost?

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

 
IF the Aviators are the best headphones for that money then I have nothing against them. Are they? Are Skullcandy Aviators now the absolute best headphones one can buy for 150€ or whatever they cost?

No.

 

[roma101]

I'd love to hear more impressions if anyone has them.

 

[Ishcabible]

Quote:

 
Do you really believe that -- considering build quality sound quality and overall value -- what Skullcandy has to offer is better than what the big 'audiophile' brands have to offer at that price range? Remember, HD-25-1 II's, for example, can be had at about that price.
 
If the Aviators are just plain better than any other headphones at that price range, then sure they are a great buy, even if the brand is notorious for being... well, unreliable to say the least. If they are not, which I suspect is the case after reading some user reviews and such, then why in the world would I or ANYONE buy them? Isn't buying the products that are the best value for money the most level headed/anti-fanboy -like thing to do?
 
Buying them even though there are better options at that price range sounds like fanboyism to me -- or willful ignorance.
 
IF the Aviators are the best headphones for that money then I have nothing against them. Are they? Are Skullcandy Aviators now the absolute best headphones one can buy for 150€ or whatever they cost?

Why do they have to be better? Can't they be in the same league as other $150 headphones to be recommended? And enlighten me, what are the absolute best headphones for $150? There aren't any. These seem to have a different sound sig as most other headphones in this price range that are gushed over like the M50, SRH750, DT770, SRH840, and such.
 
And remember these have a lifetime warranty. I'm not trying to praise them without hearing them, just putting things into perspective. They may be great, they may not. But seriously, writing them off without hearing them is absurd.

 

[Kiiskinen]

Quote:

Why do they have to be better? Can't they be in the same league as other $150 headphones to be recommended? And enlighten me, what are the absolute best headphones for $150? There aren't any. These seem to have a different sound sig as most other headphones in this price range that are gushed over like the M50, SRH750, DT770, SRH840, and such.
 
And remember these have a lifetime warranty. I'm not trying to praise them without hearing them, just putting things into perspective. They may be great, they may not. But seriously, writing them off without hearing them is absurd.

I'm afraid 'the same league' is not good enough. There are already a ton of headphones 'in the same league' (and a big league at that, mind you; just getting there would take some serious effort) at that price range; if someone is looking to join these big players (speaking strickly about the audiophile-community, Skullcandy probably sells more headphones yearly than any of the audiophile 'big boys') they'd have to do SOMETHING to justify their existence.
 
They have to rise above the competition somehow. Sound signature, sure. I can't really speak much about that, only having used three pairs of premium headphones in and around that price category (DT770, HFI-650, SR80i) and the HD-25-1 II's, that can be had for around 160-170€. Plus I've never used the Aviators, so I don't know what their sound signature is like.
 
But the point I've been trying to make for a while now is that you have so many options, so many sure-shot headphones at that price range. So many different sound signatures, designs... And that being the case, what exactly is the thing that makes someone go 'Ooh, I'll buy those Skullcandy headphones over the Sennheisers!', especially if they don't sound any better? I'm looking to buy headphones at that price category currently. Why would I risk getting the Aviators that might sound 'plasticky' (like one user review said), and might break after two weeks -- like most Skullcandy headphones do -- over the HD-25-1 II's or HFI-780 (a bit more expensive but anyway) etc? Is their sound signature really something so unique and so ear-gasmic?
 
The lifetime warranty is certainly a point for Skullcandy. Looks, too, to whom looks matter (I like the ultra-shiny Ultrasones better). But other than that? Maybe I'm just too cautious and too scared of spending money on something that turns out to be junk. Despite all the exclamation marks, long walls of text and abusing of capslock, I'm not on a warpath against Skullcandy or the Aviators. It's just that I don't understand why people are so excited about them, or suddenly standing up for Skullcandy. You already have a ton of great headphones to choose from, it's just one more fish in the pond. So Skullcandy made something that apparently isn't junk for once. Sennheiser, for example, always makes stuff that isn't junk, isn't a company like that more worthy of your monetary support, especially if the Aviators are not better than the Senn's.
 
I would like to test them, though, and see if a reason to buy them over the alternatives actually exists.

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishcabible /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Quote:

 
Do you really believe that -- considering build quality sound quality and overall value -- what Skullcandy has to offer is better than what the big 'audiophile' brands have to offer at that price range? Remember, HD-25-1 II's, for example, can be had at about that price.
 
If the Aviators are just plain better than any other headphones at that price range, then sure they are a great buy, even if the brand is notorious for being... well, unreliable to say the least. If they are not, which I suspect is the case after reading some user reviews and such, then why in the world would I or ANYONE buy them? Isn't buying the products that are the best value for money the most level headed/anti-fanboy -like thing to do?
 
Buying them even though there are better options at that price range sounds like fanboyism to me -- or willful ignorance.
 
IF the Aviators are the best headphones for that money then I have nothing against them. Are they? Are Skullcandy Aviators now the absolute best headphones one can buy for 150€ or whatever they cost?

Why do they have to be better? Can't they be in the same league as other $150 headphones to be recommended? And enlighten me, what are the absolute best headphones for $150? There aren't any. These seem to have a different sound sig as most other headphones in this price range that are gushed over like the M50, SRH750, DT770, SRH840, and such.
 
And remember these have a lifetime warranty. I'm not trying to praise them without hearing them, just putting things into perspective. They may be great, they may not. But seriously, writing them off without hearing them is absurd.

 
I don't mean to get in an argument I've not been called to, but not only has everyone been saying the same thing for quite some time ("sure I'll recommend them if they sound ok"), but also... Kiiskinen said something completely reasonable. The Aviators can be in the same league as every other 150$ headphones, sure. They can be whatever Skullcandy decides they will be, really. He didn't write them off at all, he just said his hopes weren't all that high about a brand known for putting aesthetics before sound quality, although if they are comparable to the headphones in that range (which you mentioned several models), then he'll recommend them.
Not trying to go all rage on you at all, I just don't think it was very fair calling a reasonable post absurd.

 

[dub Beatz]

Until I get some impressions from more than one reputable head-fier I'm not even going to put these in the considerable side grade / upgrade list for 2011. 

 

[Ishcabible]

Quote:

 
I don't mean to get in an argument I've not been called to, but not only has everyone been saying the same thing for quite some time ("sure I'll recommend them if they sound ok"), but also... Kiiskinen said something completely reasonable. The Aviators can be in the same league as every other 150$ headphones, sure. They can be whatever Skullcandy decides they will be, really. He didn't write them off at all, he just said his hopes weren't all that high about a brand known for putting aesthetics before sound quality, although if they are comparable to the headphones in that range (which you mentioned several models), then he'll recommend them.
Not trying to go all rage on you at all, I just don't think it was very fair calling a reasonable post absurd.

I wasn't calling the poster absurd, I'm just calling the pessimists as a collective absurd sorry if it looked like I was calling Kiiskinen out! And as to the reasoning, fair enough. I mean these are technically their "nice" headphones, disregarding the Mix Masters. It's not like they'd end up losing money on a bit more R&D, because tons of people will buy them anyways, so if they were really trying to impress us, then sure, they definitely should have made a better sounding driver.

 

[dub Beatz]

I agree. To be honest, I don't really think these were designed with impressing audiophiles in mind. It's just another mid end can to compete with the Beats. People are already catching on too, I've seen several kids on campus with them. 

 

[sqcomp]

What would be the comparison between the Skullcandy Roc Nation Aviator and perhaps the Audio Technica ATH M50?  I'm asking simply because I'm reading this review having just received my first M50 phones.  It''d be interesting to hear the impressions from someone who has both.

 

[LizardKing1]

I actually believe the "high-school kid buying overpriced headphones just for their looks", although accurate as we can unfortunately confirm, is falling apart. They still do it, but many have gone the smarter way of searching and finding out a bit more about audio, and here's why:
 
1) No matter how much fanboyism is in you, you can't look away to the fact that your headphones keep breaking apart, which is recurrent in Skullcandies and even more in Beats
2) Some kids have friends who are members of Head-Fi and actually give those other trustful-brand pairs a listen, and understand what they've been missing
3) Also, as we witness almost daily, a lot of people don't want to spend 300$ just because of advertising and spam our forums with threads of "Are the beats a good purchase?", and are immediately redirected to a lot of other brands