[jjacq]

^Well okay, you're mad at the method but who isn't. Maybe it's the most they can do as a company, pay inexperienced/non-interested famous people to do their advertising for them to boost up their popularity. They know that if they let a highly specialized group of people(like audiophiles) do the reviews, they probably won't get so far. Sure it's dishonest but people listen to those who advertise them and sad to say that at the end of the day, whoever makes the most money wins.

 

[Emospence]

Quote:

Well the fact that most noise canceling headphones don't even isolate that well makes me wonder why they are even for sale... 
 

Me too.

 

[silentstorm27]

Quote:

 So, I was listening to the radio when I flip to a channel where a man trying to sound like an audiophile was talking about how amazing souls are.
 
"O ma gawd guys. These headphones are so amazing, I use them every day in the studio and I can't believe barely anyone has ever heard of them before. They are called Soul and Ludacris approves of them. You know that when a celebrity likes it, it has to be amazing! These headphones are like nothing I've ever heard before! The bass is absolutely amazing and the mids are great and the trebles are awesome and the isolation is cool and they look so sexy!"
 
Granted, I am not a first-class audiophile, but telling the difference between an audiophile review and an advert is not the hardest task in the world. You need to admit the guy was paid a shiny nickel to say this. Especially since the radio station is in Bakersfield, which is essentially the rednecks version of The Vatican.
 
I'm quite sure this king of marketing strategy is why you can now see these kind headphones on the skulls of every minor in existence. They are stupid enough to fall for it. These are the same people who call any type of reviewer a fraud because they said bad things about a product that they liked..

I agree! It's like the Bose marketing which, I must admit, drug me in back in 2003. That was when I was still somewhat a teen and thought it was the best thing next to sliced bread. I felt suckered after hearing it was just a marketing scheme. This was after buying the original QC2 (broke about 2 months after getting them, known and unfixed issue) for $299 then buying the Wave Music Player with the CD Player for $499. That's about $800 I wish I could get back. Research would have saved me from a very expensive mistake.

 

[silentstorm27]

Quote:

  I am not mad at the advertising, I am mad at the method. There is a fine line between advertising and lying. And no one is going to advertise genetically engineered food as being a good thing, completely separate spectrum. I don't think similar marketed headphones like beats are horrible. I have not tried souls but from what I read they are even better, but even then, there are headphones hundreds of times better, and those are the ones that should be advertised. Unfortunatly only the ones that choose to advertise dishonestly are the ones that come out on top. Don't give me crap about it not being dishonest advertising. If they are paying someone to use the headphones and say how amazing they are, while the user really does not think they are nt that special, it is dishonest. People conceve the idea that these are great headphones that all DJs use.

Yes! I bet you Ludacris and Dr. Dre are using AKG's, Sennheiser's, etc in their studio. They would have to because the headphones they actually stamped their name on is producing muddy music and their music just wouldn't sound right. They need clarity to put out a good album.

 

[streetdragon]

beats make me feel good.....
.
.
.
.
because after listening to them my headphones sound magically better

never had a chance to try a soul (or SOL for that matter), i would want to, just out of curiosity and the lols (better to be informed than ignorant)

 

[jjacq]

Quote:

Yes! I bet you Ludacris and Dr. Dre are using AKG's, Sennheiser's, etc in their studio. They would have to because the headphones they actually stamped their name on is producing muddy music and their music just wouldn't sound right. They need clarity to put out a good album.

Haha +1.

I feel like companies like Bose, Monster, etc, don't care if you end up regretting your decision with the headphones you chose as long as they make money. It may be profitable but probably not in the long run...

 

[BrownBear]

Quote:

I agree! It's like the Bose marketing which, I must admit, drug me in back in 2003. That was when I was still somewhat a teen and thought it was the best thing next to sliced bread.

 
Absolutely, I remember the same thing. Years and years ago, I would flip through some magazine, and see the Bose ads all the time. I loved music, and would always say to myself that one day I'd get a set of Bose headphones so I could really hear my music. All the way back from when I was like 10 and 11. Lol.

 

[jjacq]

My mom's a big fan of Bose, we have a 2.1 Bose system for our TV and the wave system that she insisted on buying. When she saw that I had JBL passives she wanted me to put that in the TV. I was a bit surprised that she even knew of JBL when they're not really that advertised.

 

[khoi14021993]

Quote:

  I am not mad at the advertising, I am mad at the method. There is a fine line between advertising and lying. And no one is going to advertise genetically engineered food as being a good thing, completely separate spectrum. I don't think similar marketed headphones like beats are horrible. I have not tried souls but from what I read they are even better, but even then, there are headphones hundreds of times better, and those are the ones that should be advertised. Unfortunatly only the ones that choose to advertise dishonestly are the ones that come out on top. Don't give me crap about it not being dishonest advertising. If they are paying someone to use the headphones and say how amazing they are, while the user really does not think they are nt that special, it is dishonest. People conceve the idea that these are great headphones that all DJs use.

There is no line between advertising and lying IMO. Genetically engineered food can't be advertised because EVERYONE knows it's bad. It's not the same with headphones. As consumer market is oblivious about audio, producers can indoctrinate them with whatever they want, and while it's evil, it's a smart method.

 

[BrownBear]

Quote:

There is no line between advertising and lying IMO. Genetically engineered food can't be advertised because EVERYONE knows it's bad. It's not the same with headphones. As consumer market is oblivious about audio, producers can indoctrinate them with whatever they want, and while it's evil, it's a smart method.

 
Yeah, I tend to agree with this I think. If you're saying what I think you're saying. Advertising can be a tricky thing.

 

[Lux Nocte]

Quote:

There is no line between advertising and lying IMO. Genetically engineered food can't be advertised because EVERYONE knows it's bad. It's not the same with headphones. As consumer market is oblivious about audio, producers can indoctrinate them with whatever they want, and while it's evil, it's a smart method.

 
In your second statement, you pretty much argued what I agreed with.
 
First, yes there is a line between advertising and lying, for example:
"this headphone has magical parasites in it that can time travel"

 

[khoi14021993]

Quote:

 
In your second statement, you pretty much argued what I agreed with.
 
First, yes there is a line between advertising and lying, for example:
"this headphone has magical parasites in it that can time travel"

Well, that is what customers deciphered from the advertisement, not what the advertiser bluntly said. Beats just simply paid various (popular) artists to wear their products, and that made people think their headphones are the best. They didn't lie, because not one word is even said there.

 

[khoi14021993]

Quote:

 
Yeah, I tend to agree with this I think. If you're saying what I think you're saying. Advertising can be a tricky thing.

Yeah, let's just agree that we're thinking the same thing.

 

[BrownBear]

Quote:

Yeah, let's just agree that we're thinking the same thing.

Lol. In all honesty, I'm not sure what I was agreeing with. I think I understand your post, but I'm not sure. Are you saying that companies (for headphones say) can 'lie' about their products because the masses are generally unaware of the possibilities of a proper headphone?
 
EDIT - You know what, lie is a harsh word. Let's say bend the truth.

 

[khoi14021993]

Quote:

Lol. In all honesty, I'm not sure what I was agreeing with. I think I understand your post, but I'm not sure. Are you saying that companies (for headphones say) can 'lie' about their products because the masses are generally unaware of the correct function of a proper headphone?

'Correct function' is kinda misleading, but I get what you mean. I'm not saying that it's ok to lie to customers, but advertisers themselves are very swift in doing so, without getting sued for it. For example, Beats didn't really say their products are the best, but they implanted the idea in customers' mind using their advertisement, and there's nothing wrong in doing that. They certainly didn't lie, but at the same time make us Head-Fiers think they're lying to the mass. That's what I mean when I said there's no line between advertising and lying. It's just how good you are at both.