[LizardKing1]

Quote:

you see, now things make more sense about ET
I agree with you about the Solo, i tried the HD version and dude i was like "is it me or apple earphones sounds better than this???" 
Studios, well the bass is good and really make your body all pumped and wanna bang anything you see.

I don't think headphones are supposed to do that...

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

Well, i don't blame heaven at this point
I know he was referring to HD-25-1, I just compared the HD250 to tell him that my cheap headphones sounds better than Beats so it means without thinking much that his is better than beats by way up there.
and dont be =( about B&W, we both just have different tastes and ears I guess
I tried the P5, but really come on. 300$? why? its no different than beats at this rate, good looks but SQ come on, really? for 300$ dont u think u can get better than P5
 
 

Contrary to the Beats Solo, the P5, as overpriced as it may be, remains a serious product.
Just an example : as measured on Tyll Hertsen's equipment, it has one of the lowest THD measured ever of supra-aural headphones (lower than HD-25 or DT 1350). 
 
Personally I find that sound-wise it shouldn't be more than 180 euros. But the build quality and great ergonomics transform it into one of the nicest headphone I've ever used on a daily basis.
It also does a few things very few portable supra-aurals can. Ex : I've been playing piano since 6 yo, and the P5 is very good at conveying the instrument timber and weight. It's perfectly weighted for that instrument (but lacking in details though). So it does have qualities.
I aslo listen to an awful lot of old, badly recorded albums - and the P5 is the king in this regards, as its coloration transforms them into gold.
And even though I find it a little too bling bling, it's mostly made out of good taste, like some vintage minimalistic Longines watches.
 
So to me it can have a decent value depending on a person's needs, while I see little value in the beats Solo or Studio from anybody's point of view. Even for "bass lovers" or R&B fans (the TMA-1 does a better job here, and isn't nearly as bad looking).
 

 

[Eric_C]

Quote:

about B&W, we both just have different tastes and ears I guess
I tried the P5, but really come on. 300$? why? its no different than beats at this rate, good looks but SQ come on, really? for 300$ dont u think u can get better than P5
 
 

It really does Bowers & Wilkins an injustice to compare them to Beats. B&W's been making audio equipment--mainly speakers for the longest time--for years. Beats, on the other hand, hasn't even been around for 10 years?
 
The P5 has solid craftsmanship. I've tried it too, and I'm sure you noticed it the moment you picked it up. The lambskin pads both feel nice and are practical, easily conforming to the shape of your ears and providing a decent seal from the outside world. It's also great that they detach by magnets--makes swapping them out (and the cable) easy. The overall construction of the headphone is sturdy, due in large part to the metal frame, which the cups also slide along smoothly and silently. And, the sound is nice. Not award-winning, but nice.
 
You can't judge a product solely on SQ. That's unrealistic. We all choose our products based on a variety of factors, and even if SQ is the primary one, it's not like the rest just disappear. The P5 is expensive, but it feels expensive, and based on the materials, there's some point to the expense. The Beats headphones--for the most part--do not look or feel expensive, and aside from noise cancellation (which other companies do better, cheaper, or both), there doesn't seem to be much justification for the expense.

 

[LizardKing1]

Eric_C I don't think sound it just the main factor, it's a dealbreaker. If a pair of headphones sounds bad, even if it's really light and comfortable, I won't use them. On the other hand, I'll wear an uncomfortable pair if they sound good (although I'll try to mod them). That's why, no matter how good the P5s sound and how compfy they are, I wouldn't buy them at retail price.

 

[Eric_C]

But that just means the P5 doesn't sound good enough and/or it's other factors aren't good enough to warrant the price for you. Objectively, the P5 does sound decent and has secondary traits that justify a higher asking price.

The Beats line really don't have those qualities. The Solo lacks build quality, and the Studio (and its variants) over-ask for the noise cancellation, inconvenience of batteries at all times, and then have subpar sound.

 

[LizardKing1]

I'm sorry, but I really disagree. Objectively, they sound like 100$ headphones - and there's 100$ headphones that sound way better. The cable is hair-thin, the isolation is poor for a portable, the looks are ok and they're compfy. That with the removable pads in no way justifies an extra 200$.

 

[MayaTlab]

 
Quote:

the isolation is poor for a portable

No, it's excellent, and that has been measured. That may explain your really bad impression. I personally think that its sound is technically slightly lower than the HD-25 (except bass extension), but that it has a more musical sound signature (the HD-25 was designed as a monitoring device after all).
Otherwise, I agree that the cable is thin - but it actually is replaceable and there isn't any necessary correlation between thinness and fragility. The only cable I ever broke was one from a Shure SE420 and that was the thickest IEM cable I've ever come across.
I'd prefer to see them at 200 euros though, rather than 299.
 
 

 

[ikenourmos]

Quote:

I don't think headphones are supposed to do that...

well, at some point I think it became the selling idea in Beats I guess. there has to be a reason to be expensive and sound bad you know

 

[ikenourmos]

Quote:

Contrary to the Beats Solo, the P5, as overpriced as it may be, remains a serious product.
Just an example : as measured on Tyll Hertsen's equipment, it has one of the lowest THD measured ever of supra-aural headphones (lower than HD-25 or DT 1350). 
 
Personally I find that sound-wise it shouldn't be more than 180 euros. But the build quality and great ergonomics transform it into one of the nicest headphone I've ever used on a daily basis.
It also does a few things very few portable supra-aurals can. Ex : I've been playing piano since 6 yo, and the P5 is very good at conveying the instrument timber and weight. It's perfectly weighted for that instrument (but lacking in details though). So it does have qualities.
I aslo listen to an awful lot of old, badly recorded albums - and the P5 is the king in this regards, as its coloration transforms them into gold.
And even though I find it a little too bling bling, it's mostly made out of good taste, like some vintage minimalistic Longines watches.
 
So to me it can have a decent value depending on a person's needs, while I see little value in the beats Solo or Studio from anybody's point of view. Even for "bass lovers" or R&B fans (the TMA-1 does a better job here, and isn't nearly as bad looking).
 

I agree with the quality built since I've tried it many times in Apple and BestBuy stores here in the US. but sounds wise I really can say around 120~140 euros
Beats even worse but yeah I do get your point about it. Don't get me wrong I really wanted to have a P5 when it first came out but for some reason one thing led to another and I didn't.
I want to see what new stuff B&W can make in the near future and decide my next headphone

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

 

No, it's excellent, and that has been measured. That may explain your really bad impression. I personally think that its sound is technically slightly lower than the HD-25 (except bass extension), but that it has a more musical sound signature (the HD-25 was designed as a monitoring device after all).
Otherwise, I agree that the cable is thin - but it actually is replaceable and there isn't any necessary correlation between thinness and fragility. The only cable I ever broke was one from a Shure SE420 and that was the thickest IEM cable I've ever come across.
I'd prefer to see them at 200 euros though, rather than 299.

I didn't know they were so well-known for the isolation. Still, the way I tried them they isolated poorly, but it might have been the position on my ears.
I really don't think the HD-25 is a monitor, even if that was the original intent. It has a very obvious V-shaped signature, and is often said to be very musical.
The cable argument is pointless: just because you can replace it doesn't mean it shouldn't be good to begin with. That's like when you buy a car the salesman tell you the stock tires suck entirely, but hey, you can always get new ones! A thin cable usually sounds worse than a decent-sized one, and unless that one is shielded with Kevlar, something that thing will break in little time.

 

[ikenourmos]

Quote:

It really does Bowers & Wilkins an injustice to compare them to Beats. B&W's been making audio equipment--mainly speakers for the longest time--for years. Beats, on the other hand, hasn't even been around for 10 years?
 
The P5 has solid craftsmanship. I've tried it too, and I'm sure you noticed it the moment you picked it up. The lambskin pads both feel nice and are practical, easily conforming to the shape of your ears and providing a decent seal from the outside world. It's also great that they detach by magnets--makes swapping them out (and the cable) easy. The overall construction of the headphone is sturdy, due in large part to the metal frame, which the cups also slide along smoothly and silently. And, the sound is nice. Not award-winning, but nice.
 
You can't judge a product solely on SQ. That's unrealistic. We all choose our products based on a variety of factors, and even if SQ is the primary one, it's not like the rest just disappear. The P5 is expensive, but it feels expensive, and based on the materials, there's some point to the expense. The Beats headphones--for the most part--do not look or feel expensive, and aside from noise cancellation (which other companies do better, cheaper, or both), there doesn't seem to be much justification for the expense.

 
So you want to say that because a company stayed so long in a certain area means they are good at it?
Can you explain Bose? you really think they worth their price just because they were in the music industry longer than beats? (btw, beats is only 3 years old and monsters 33 years old but since beats is under monsters to begin with so I think 33 years really long)
 
I think this whole idea od being around for so long means better is just a marketing scheme just like more expensive things means better.
and if we put SQ as the only reason to buy a headphone I think many audiophiles do that so I cannot see the unrealistic part
its same when people only want style regarding of SQ is good or not. totally normal and human like.
 

 
 

 

[ikenourmos]

Quote:

I'm sorry, but I really disagree. Objectively, they sound like 100$ headphones - and there's 100$ headphones that sound way better. The cable is hair-thin, the isolation is poor for a portable, the looks are ok and they're compfy. That with the removable pads in no way justifies an extra 200$.

if not being able to hear whats around me when I play Viva La Vida on rush hour next to a freeway means bad isolation, i really wanna know what it means to have good isolation.

 

[LizardKing1]

I didn't know Coldplay increased isolation, or did you mention the album just for Indie cred?
 
Just kidding. But no one ever said we had to have the same experiences. Maybe our ears have different sizes, maybe I was wearing them wrong. Whatever the case, I felt like it was by no means worth the price. 150$ ~ 200$, since it looks really good and it's partially metal. And that cable really upsets me.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

I didn't know they were so well-known for the isolation. Still, the way I tried them they isolated poorly, but it might have been the position on my ears.
I really don't think the HD-25 is a monitor, even if that was the original intent. It has a very obvious V-shaped signature, and is often said to be very musical.
The cable argument is pointless: just because you can replace it doesn't mean it shouldn't be good to begin with. That's like when you buy a car the salesman tell you the stock tires suck entirely, but hey, you can always get new ones! A thin cable usually sounds worse than a decent-sized one, and unless that one is shielded with Kevlar, something that thing will break in little time.

Well I've yet to break any "hair thin cable" in my possession. Again, I do not understand the correlation between thin and fragile. And I don't see why it is necessarily bad (just for the sole reason of being thin). It's true that I don't feel it's the last word in terms of strength, but as I said, anybody laying their hands on thick Shure IEM cables would find them extremely durable - and it appeared to be a widely known issue (around 2007 or so)  that they broke quite easily over time (especially where it loops around the ear) until Shure released a new model. So the appearance cannot be relied on to judge that sort of thing. Also I'm probably ignorant on the matter, but I do not understand why a thin cable necessarily sounds worse than a thicker one.
 
I quite agree though that the argument of "I've been making speakers for decades" doesn't hold. And I'm sure one pays for the badge with the P5.
 
Also I don't find he HD-25 very musical except with rock/ metal for which I think it is perfectly voiced (after all, it's called the Grado Sennheiser), or if amped with some particular models (I own a TTVJ Slim which has the ability to give musicality to anything). As an example piano is for me a no-no on the HD-25 (sounds flat and boring to me, and too grainy). Another example would be jazz or classical music, for which I think the bass presentation isn't good (unrealistic impact, and too dry). Also, it doesn't really have a V-shaped sound signature (as measured on Innerfidelity). It's rather flat actually, with maybe a slight treble boost. The bass is very flat though. Now, it may have a perceived V shaped sound, an impression I'd quite agree with, but I think it's more related to the impact of the bass and the graininess of the upper midrange / treble rather than actual FR curve. And anyway, I do not think that frequency response is the only influence over musicality. I'd bet driver material, damping, housing material, position of the driver, etc., are as important if not more to making a pair of headphones musical in general.
I think that it remains a brilliant product for its main use (recording on the go, movie industry, broadcast, etc.).
 
And just to stir this topic back to its purpose, I think we'd agree anyway that somebody's better off buying something else than Beats headphones these days. I really see no advantage to them, as their sound quality to me does not seem to be compensated by some other aspects such as build quality or ergonomics.
 

 

[LizardKing1]

Of course a thinner cable doesn't necessarily mean less durable, the same way smoking a pack a day doesn't necessarily mean you'll die of lung cancer. But if you take the cable from my SRH750 and the one from the P5s and pull them as hard as you can, I will bet you any headphone in how the P5's breaks first (and the one from the SRH750 probably won't break at all). Being thinner just makes it less durable than if it were thicker. What you mean is, there are cables less durables than other cables which happen to be thinner, and that's because the insulation is of better quality, but the same cable in 2 versions - thicker and thinner - will break faster in the thinner version.
 
The difference from a thin cable to a thicker is very small, the copper purity matters a lot more (and even that matters very little compared to sources, amps, etc). I just mentioned it to be annyoing 

 and yeah, let's get back on track. Beats suck, get something else.