[Tyll Hertsens]

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.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[marcusd]

This is a really interesting debate. I mean if SC have truly got a great headphone are we not guilty of falling into the same trap here as most SC owners do?
 
Going for the brand?
 
Sure the brands we pick are 'better' but we still go for brands none the less - in our local forum we have a deep FOTM stream from time to time which sees many go for something because someone else has it lol... this month it is the fiio e9. Previous history can have a lasting impression but for every "Lada' there is a Skoda and dang if Skoda didn't turn around their fortunes big time in Europe and are now known for great quality cars.
 
Yes it takes time to change, but I for one wont be brand conscious one bit unless I am thinking resale value in later life. I go for sq every time and what my ears tell me - if these sound good then great, sign me up, I want to hear them man and I have a HE6 lol....crazy times

 

[Mushrooshi]

Anyone willing to take the plunge and get a pair of these for extensive reviewing?

 

[sanakaku]

Jude, srsly but that aviator looks good. I like the classy looks.

 

[Argyris]

I think people are being a little too optimistic about this. If what Tyll says is true (and he's the numbers guy), I would say that Skullcandy isn't really interested in what us Head-Fi'ers have been saying. In other words, these products aren't an indication that they're "moving" in any direction on anything but their own steam. I've also seen a few impressions of the Aviators before (wish I could remember where--a search should turn it up but I'm lazy 

) and they weren't quite as ecstatic as Jude's and Tyll's, so I doubt they will have universal appeal among the audiophile set. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
However, I resent the "tiny minority" rhetoric. There's a quote that hangs on at least one classroom wall in just about every school in America: "What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right." It applies here. I have no problem with a company like SC attempting to make inroads with a demographic it hasn't courted before, and I'll keep an open mind about their new products. But I will not concede that SC's usual output is equivalent to that of reputable hi-fi brands or should be taken seriously and respected by us Head-Fi'ers. It is not, and I don't feel obligated to "accept" anything, least of all my "place" in the audio world. I don't care if there are 1,000 GI's for every DT880 in existence. The DT880 is better by every objective standard, period. When it comes to sound, we on Head-Fi are right and the image brands are wrong. Their popularity does not alter that fact. If they're willing to try to be more "right" with their new products, then all power to them. But I will not move to become more wrong to accommodate them.

 

[Argyris]

I think an even better example would be Panasonic with its Technics brand. They made some fine kit under that banner. Vintage Technics gear is highly sought after even today, and you have to hand it to them--they did make the most powerful receiver ever designed. 330 watts per channel RMS, for the record. For SC, maybe even a different logo would help. Something sophisticated, something that sets the more serious gear apart from the fun, trendy output.
 
Quote:

I don't doubt that Skullcandy are capable of producing a decent set of cans if they truly wanted to, but I'd suggest to them they create a different name just for the high-end gear (rather like Toyota did with Lexus). They probably wont, but it's easier to sell low-end gear when you have a high-end reputation, than change a poor reputation just by making something decent.

 

[gjohnst4]

I think this will lead to a lot of "wow, so this is what headphones can sound like" moments for young buyers. They will go with a brand they have seen on shelves EVERYWHERE, and not knowing about Shure, Sennheiser, or Grado, pick them up and get a decent set of cans and be introduced into the audiophile community.

 

[Marximus]

Well, call me Plunger.  Actually, don't call me that.  But I did just order the brown and gold Aviators.  I went through Punk.com, because with ground shipping and tax at skullcandy.com, it would have been about $165.  With priority (2-3 days) shipping at Punk.com, it was only $160.  I suppose you guys would be interested in hearing about how they sound, so I might post a little review or something.  Maybe.  NGL, one of the draws for me is the comfort.  I love my DT 150s, but they're like a padded vise.

 

[Armaegis]

Step 1: Establish market dominance is targeted demographic. Gain "household name" status. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
 
Step 2: As the demographic matures and gains larger disposable incomes and more discriminating tastes, evolve the product to suit. P.S. keep up with the lower end stuff too; there's a cycle at work here.
 
Step 3: Profit.

 

[Kiiskinen]

Quote:

 

Fair enough, guess we'll have to wait and see how they'll turn up in the end.

 

[marcusd]

Quote:

Well, call me Plunger.  Actually, don't call me that.  But I did just order the brown and gold Aviators.  I went through Punk.com, because with ground shipping and tax at skullcandy.com, it would have been about $165.  With priority (2-3 days) shipping at Punk.com, it was only $160.  I suppose you guys would be interested in hearing about how they sound, so I might post a little review or something.  Maybe.  NGL, one of the draws for me is the comfort.  I love my DT 150s, but they're like a padded vise.

Looking forward to your review my friend, I hope it opens up new views on old opinions

 

[Argyris]

 

Bored and plagued by insomnia (I didn't actually sleep at all last night), so I figured I'd post a few Head-Fi links about the Aviators:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/525780/would-you-pay-75-for-skullcandy-aviators
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/522922/skullcandy-rocnation-aviators-a-brief-review
 
There might be more, but these are a few where people have actually heard them.
​

 

[Vaughn]

It looks like they might have some new people in the design department, for the better!
 
IMO (and with a past in product design) these are miles ahead of previous efforts, at least aesthetically. Certainly aiming at a different market...
 
I might have made a couple of different choices; maybe a matte finish on the Aviator's metal parts... still, a big improvement.

 

[Marximus]

I do, too.  I tried the Titans and deplored them.  On second thought, I should have just gone to a Mac/Apple store in Portland and bought these today.  Oh, well.
 
Quote:

Quote:

Well, call me Plunger.  Actually, don't call me that.  But I did just order the brown and gold Aviators.  I went through Punk.com, because with ground shipping and tax at skullcandy.com, it would have been about $165.  With priority (2-3 days) shipping at Punk.com, it was only $160.  I suppose you guys would be interested in hearing about how they sound, so I might post a little review or something.  Maybe.  NGL, one of the draws for me is the comfort.  I love my DT 150s, but they're like a padded vise.

Looking forward to your review my friend, I hope it opens up new views on old opinions

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

Skullcandy producing decent sounding headphones and Duke Nukem Forever gets a release date. The end of the world is near!