[roma101]

Quote:

^
 
Are you serious... come on. What skull-candy customer is going to have ever heard of the LCD-2 much less care about the comparison?
 
Maybe you were joking?

ME. 

 

 
Seriously, head-fi is disappointing me these days. People need to be more open-minded. This is a website about the love of audio and headphones - not about bashing brands. You bashers need to listen to the headphone and then... bash away if you feel like it deserves it (eg. Beats undoubtedly deserves it. They basically insult the average consumer with the horrible build, shoddy sound, and a wallet-hemorrhaging price). But unless you've listened to the Aviator and come up with a rational response to why the headphone doesn't sound good to your ears (meaning, you actually have to listen to the headphone), bashing a brand called "skull-candy" will not get you any where, let alone make you sound credible. That goes for anyone who judges any headphone from any brand before trying it.
 
 
 


Quote:

 
Nice. Now that I've said my peace, I hope the OP finds what he's looking for in all of this. 

 

[soundstige]

I personally couldn't care less about who makes what headphone. I found issue with printing in an article an easily mined quote comparing $150 headphones to $945 ones.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by roma101 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Seriously, head-fi is disappointing me these days. People need to be more open-minded. This is a website about the love of audio and headphones - not about bashing brands. You bashers need to listen to the headphone and then... bash away if you feel like it deserves it (eg. Beats undoubtedly deserves it. They basically insult the average consumer with the horrible build, shoddy sound, and a wallet-hemorrhaging price). But unless you've listened to the Aviator and come up with a rational response to why the headphone doesn't sound good to your ears (meaning, you actually have to listen to the headphone), bashing a brand called "skull-candy" will not get you any where, let alone make you sound credible. That goes for anyone who judges any headphone from any brand before trying it.

 

 

[Currawong]

There are some quite decent $150 headphones available nowadays. I'm sure if we were talking about, say, Shures or Denons, there wouldn't be this argument.

 

[ohmyheadfi]

Quote:

I personally couldn't care less about who makes what headphone. I found issue with printing in an article an easily mined quote comparing $150 headphones to $945 ones.
 
 

 
I've been lurking around these forums for a couple of months now researching about my first real headphone purchase (coming from a beat-up, 9-year-old $20 Sony MDR-V250), and find many, many posts very informative. The above quote is not one of them; are you going to go the way of "guilty before proven innocent?" I'm extremely grateful for the information that Tyll provides at Inner Fidelity, including that the Aviators, with a quick listen in a loud, noisy environment, can actually give the LCD-2 a match. Are you going to "find issue" with every possible piece of "quote-minable" text by reviewers and enthusiasts, regardless of intent, even if that's what the individual observed?
 

 
 

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

I personally couldn't care less about who makes what headphone. I found issue with printing in an article an easily mined quote comparing $150 headphones to $945 ones.
 
 

Well given the situation of the headphone's testing, I couldn't blame him for saying it. If I were listening to a pair of LCD-2's in a really loud environment (since they are open-back headphones), it would be hard to determine its actual sound signature compared to a noise-isolating closed headphone (such as the Aviators), am I wrong? Not to mention that the reviewer only had a brief listen of the headphones.
 
I have a hard time hearing my music through my HD 238's in a bus ride, so my CX-300's definitely sound better in that environment despite them being less-expensive and having a totally different sound-signature from the HD 238's.
 
Although I respect everyone's opinion about any product, I have read many reviews that the Aviators are decent headphones compared to other headphones made by the same company.
 
Also two thumbs up to Tyll for reviewing the many headphones he has listened to. I find his videos, reviews, and frequency graphs to be really helpful for those looking for an informative overview of the headphones.
 

 

[soundstige]

Yes, you are wrong. You don't seem to grasp the weight that the sentences chosen to comprise a written, published review have. If he was in such a poor listening environment to first test the headphones, that first haphazard listening should've never made it into the review, especially not with a comparison to a $1000 headphone being made within it. It's like saying "I was being punched in the head at the time, while someone was screaming at me, but during that first listen I swear that these dollar store IEMs sounded indistinguishable from my custom-molded in-ear reference set. Of course, upon further review in a proper environment...." If it was so brief, if it was so poor, why put it in a review article that's supposed to be taken seriously, if not for "shock value" or to artificially help the company?
 
But I'm sure people like you will continue to "not get it", so don't be surprised if I don't make a lot of further replies in this thread.
 
Quote:

Well given the situation of the headphone's testing, I couldn't blame him for saying it. If I were listening to a pair of LCD-2's in a really loud environment (since they are open-back headphones), it would be hard to determine its actual sound signature compared to a noise-isolating closed headphone (such as the Aviators), am I wrong? Not to mention that the reviewer only had a brief listen of the headphones.

 

 

 

[roma101]

Quote:

Yes, you are wrong. You don't seem to grasp the weight that the sentences chosen to comprise a written, published review have. If he was in such a poor listening environment to first test the headphones, that first haphazard listening should've never made it into the review, especially not with a comparison to a $1000 headphone being made within it. It's like saying "I was being punched in the head at the time, while someone was screaming at me, but during that first listen I swear that these dollar store IEMs sounded indistinguishable from my custom-molded in-ear reference set. Of course, upon further review in a proper environment...." If it was so brief, if it was so poor, why put it in a review article that's supposed to be taken seriously, if not for "shock value" or to artificially help the company?
 
But I'm sure people like you will continue to "not get it", so don't be surprised if I don't make a lot of further replies in this thread.
 


 

Just curious - have you actually listened to the Aviators?
 
He is not the first person in history to compare $150 dollar headphones to $900 headphones. People do it here all the time, and for good reason. And before you say something like "it's the fact that it's an article that it's so horrendous..." - I doubt anyone sees that his impression is the end-all be-all impression in some PRESTIGIOUS article. I know that I don't even view it as an article, so much as a regular person's headphone review. *shrug* That's just me though. I read reviews here all the time by very experienced reviewers like Tyll (only difference to me is that he posts his reviews on another website) - but in the end, I take it with a few grains of salt because sure, they're more experienced than me but in the end our tastes in sound sig and our perceptions to the music and its presentation may be so different. Plus anyone reading that article can easily realize that he was not in the best environment to make a final impression - that was his very first impression in a not-so-great environment but the whole purpose of him posting that and not leaving it out IMO was to convey his honest shock/reaction that these headphones can sound this good. 
 
Anyway, it's one person's quick initial impression and he has every right to write it, no matter what website/article/piece of paper/chalkboard he wants to write it on. Why anyone would be offended by that is beyond me. 
 
And if you still think he's being endorsed by companies, maybe you should take some time to read his other reviews. He blew some pretty big opportunities with Monster then, I can tell you that.

 

[Eric_C]

soundstige: 
 
1. Tyll made the comparison after qualifying that it was in a noisy environment and a brief first listen. On top of this, he was A-B'ing the closed Aviators with the open LCD-2. Of course the differences will be minimised.
 
2. You are making the hardline assumption that a cheap headphone cannot compare with an expensive headphone.
 
3. You seem to be insinuating that Tyll Hertsens does not know what he is talking about. I would contend that you do not know who Tyll Hertsens is, or you would realise how utterly unfounded your concerns are.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Quote:

 If it was so brief, if it was so poor, why put it in a review article that's supposed to be taken seriously, if not for "shock value" or to artificially help the company?

Simple, because that's what happened.
 
You ever been to CES? You ever try to figure out what something sounds like in that madhouse. I'm simply telling a story of what happened.
 
Oh, and about artificially helping the company, what about genuinely helping the company.  When I hear a good headphone I do want to help the company by telling folks they're good. And I want to help consumers by letting them know when something is good. Especially when Skullcandy is so likely to be bashed mindessly.
 
Also, I wouldn't say shock value, but I would say I included that little snippet of life because it's entertaining. See? Like this thread ... entertaining. 
 
 

 

[dub Beatz]

I don't think Skullcandy is bashed mindlessly necessarily. Until the release of the aviators, they had every reason to be openly avoided. I believe that Skullcandy is starting to skim the surface of what hi-fi audio is all about, but to be honest I don't think they'll ever change. There's more money to be made in marketing towards the younger crowd, and the majority of listeners, who prefer muddy bass and stylish looks. 

 

[freedom11b]

more bass than denon ah-d2000s?
i read the ultrasones in last page, it didnt quote them,
 
are the denon 2000s or ultrasones stronger in bass?
 
 

"Ultrasone HFI-780 folds up, comes with a bag, and is about 160 on Amazon.co.uk 
 
Ultrasones are bass-kings. I think you should look into getting these."

 

[headphonatic]

Great job guys, another uninformed head-fier convinced.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Tsk ... tsk ... tsk. Lots of people not wearing their thinking caps today. The Aviators are good ... it's that simple. 

 
I respect your opinion, but I didn't think the Aviators were that great. 
 
And I actually don't think it is that simple.  I don't think we should support companies that use such manipulative advertising to sell headphones to an ignorant populace that have no substantive SQ to back up the image they are creating and selling to the masses.  I don't want to support them and I think it's kind of absurd for head-fiers to support a company like Skullcandy.  They trick the masses into buying their products unknowingly, but those tricks shouldn't be acceptable to us.  If we buy Skullcandy products it will just lead to even more deceptive, manipulative marketing and crap products.   Companies do what is profitable.  Since our goal here is SQ I think we should support companies that put SQ first.  Or at least closer to first. 

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

 
I respect your opinion, but I didn't think the Aviators were that great. 
 
And I actually don't think it is that simple.  I don't think we should support companies that use such manipulative advertising to sell headphones to an ignorant populace that have no substantive SQ to back up the image they are creating and selling to the masses.  I don't want to support them and I think it's kind of absurd for head-fiers to support a company like Skullcandy.  They trick the masses into buying their products unknowingly, but those tricks shouldn't be acceptable to us.  If we buy Skullcandy products it will just lead to even more deceptive, manipulative marketing and crap products.   Companies do what is profitable.  Since our goal here is SQ I think we should support companies that put SQ first.  Or at least closer to first. 

Different ears different people. Not everyone needs to think a pair of headphones are good. I mean, I am not a huge fan of the M50s, and those are wildly popular here. I actually like the Aviators as well, but think they are over priced still, but closer to hitting that price to sound ratio than ever before. Really what probably bothers me more is the build quality, which isn't bad really, but it isn't what you would expect from $150 headphones. At the very least I can confidently say that they are better built, better sounding and better looking than the Beats Solo HD. They also have the distinct advantage of the lifetime warranty. Will I buy them? Probably not. I do need another pair of portables and another set of IEMs to finish the spectrum in my collection, but as of right now, I feel that I can hold off in lieu of a better home set-up. 
 
And for the record, I believe if people keep buying the Aviators and the Mix Master Mikes over their other offerings Skullcandy may start making more effort. This however is unlikely to happen as most people buy their cheaper in ears and their cheap on ears. I really feel that is unfortunate, because it just shows that their strategy works, same as Dr Dre and Monster. They won't ever make better sounding products because people are buying them regardless because of good marketing and style. Basically, Head-fi is the minority. Nothing we do will affect the greater market. We may lead maybe 5% of the headphone buying populous into getting better headphones, but that is only because head-fi tends to be a top result on google for almost any headphone review and is 4th just googling "headphone review" and the few people that actually come on here for advice (and perhaps the few head-fi reviews that end up on amazon). But in the end, we will not change the market. I wish we could, because then we would at least see an increase in base build quality and sound which would drive down prices in the lo-fi market.
 

 

[Boombastic88]

I know this is late but PLEASE don't buy the Beats! To sum it all up, (and this goes for every headphone in the Beats line) everything about the Beats is great except for the sound. To give you an example: A kid at my school had the Beats Studio and EVERYONE wanted to play with them cuz they looked cool. And, of course, they thought they sounded great because the ads told them that they did. I handed each of them my Klipsch Image S4 (which are a budget IEM) and not one of them preferred the sound of the Studios. So there ya have it. People who don't know anything about sound each preferring an $80 earbud over a $300 pair of Beats. If you want the looks, Skullcandy Roc Nation Aviators are MUCH cheaper and about 5 times better than the Beats solo. Plus they have the looks you are looking for.