[mikop]

Heh... I was just going to post something like "I bet my $25 fc700a still sound better..."

 

[tazzydnc]

 
Quote:

Lol I paid $27 for my PortaPros brand new.
These are how much?
 
Good luck selling this to proper music enthusiasts Skullcandy.
 
xD

I don't think Skullcandy (or Monster) is trying to target "proper" music enthusiasts with any of their headphones.  That's kind of a small market segment.  And there are tons of models of headphones the PPs beat for the price.  This is not news.

 

[120717]

 
Quote:

 
Quote:

Lol I paid $27 for my PortaPros brand new.
These are how much?
 
Good luck selling this to proper music enthusiasts Skullcandy.
 
xD

I don't think Skullcandy (or Monster) is trying to target "proper" music enthusiasts with any of their headphones.  That's kind of a small market segment.  And there are tons of models of headphones the PPs beat for the price.  This is not news.

 
I know but at this kind of price range I think even people used to buying the cheaper Skullcandies will be disappointed by the SQ improvement for the price difference.
 

 

[Shaggy-FOO]

I've listened to these for an extended period of time so I'll give my impressions on these cans.  The aesthetics are going to be hit or miss for many people.  Personally, I think they are stylish but not too gaudy, but again that is going to differ based on personal preference.  In terms of build quality, they are decently well built with construction made from a mixture of plastic and metal frames.  These headphones are pretty light and are comfortable enough with oddly shaped pads.  The top part of the pad might not fully cover some people's ears as it gets narrower towards the top, so again this is going to depend on the shape of your ears.  The pads itself are very soft and plush memory foam. It sits lightly on your head with little to no clamping force on your head.  I'm a little afraid of the thin "aviator" style plastic that is on the outside, as they might be prone to cracking if mishandled but overall they seem durable enough if you take care of them.  These are semi-collapsible in that you can fold them part way in, but aren't fully collapsible like the M50 or ultrasones.
 
The wires seem strong enough, but skullcandy is known for their poor cable quality which deteriorates in months, so I'll be careful of this.  It comes with a volume control which only works on apple products.  These wires are pretty hard to tangle so that's a plus.
 
In terms of sound quality...it's a mixed bad.  For $150, I would say it's not bad but there are better options out there.  It does have the typical skullcandy sound signature in that it sounds plasticy and relatively cheap.  Like tazzy said, they don't isolate sound very well so you'll hear noise from outside as well as leak sound from the inside.  The highs are crisp and tight, but sound a bit too harsh at times and lack the richness and clarity of higher end headphones.  They aren't bad by any means, but they don't sound natural...in short they sound cheap and plasticy.  The snares and cymbals sound crisp, but something is amiss in that they are a bit harsh and lack the natural PRAT that higher end headphones might give.  The mids are slightly recessed and the vocals again sound plasticy.  Male vocals lack the richness and depth that they should have, while the female vocals lack the lushness and might become slightly sibilant at times.  The bass is punchy and clean but lackluster and don't extend low very well, so anyone who listens heavily to jazz, rap, hip-hop, etc should stay away from these.  These are strictly headphones for listening to rock. 
 
So overall, are they worth $150?  Build quality wise, sure...but sound quality wise, more like $100.  Again they aren't for everyone and people who listen primarily to rock would enjoy these but everyone else should steer clear.  Sound quality is a mixed bag in that all the frequencies sound clean, tight and punchy but they lack depth, extension and lushness.
 

 

[Lex]

• Cost too much. I can buy REAL headphones for that.
• Looks like the cups are on upside-down.

 

[KuKuBuKu]

Quote:

• Cost too much. I can buy REAL headphones for that.
• Looks like the cups are on upside-down.

1. agreed
2. You know what that would look like from a side view?

 

[Olimoronio]

Quote:y

Am I the only one who thinks these look alot better then the rest of skullcandies stuff? I mean they don't look immature at all. They have nicer lines much like a Denon.
 
I doub't their worth $150 on a completely superficial standpoint these are beautiful. I wouldn't drop $150 for them unless they sound that good though.

No. They look really nice. I think I'll wait a few months 'til the price comes down to $20.

 

[Olimoronio]

Quote:

I've listened to these for an extended period of time so I'll give my impressions on these cans.  The aesthetics are going to be hit or miss for many people.  Personally, I think they are stylish but not too gaudy, but again that is going to differ based on personal preference.  In terms of build quality, they are decently well built with construction made from a mixture of plastic and metal frames.  These headphones are pretty light and are comfortable enough with oddly shaped pads.  The top part of the pad might not fully cover some people's ears as it gets narrower towards the top, so again this is going to depend on the shape of your ears.  The pads itself are very soft and plush memory foam. It sits lightly on your head with little to no clamping force on your head.  I'm a little afraid of the thin "aviator" style plastic that is on the outside, as they might be prone to cracking if mishandled but overall they seem durable enough if you take care of them.  These are semi-collapsible in that you can fold them part way in, but aren't fully collapsible like the M50 or ultrasones.
 
The wires seem strong enough, but skullcandy is known for their poor cable quality which deteriorates in months, so I'll be careful of this.  It comes with a volume control which only works on apple products.  These wires are pretty hard to tangle so that's a plus.
 
In terms of sound quality...it's a mixed bad.  For $150, I would say it's not bad but there are better options out there.  It does have the typical skullcandy sound signature in that it sounds plasticy and relatively cheap.  Like tazzy said, they don't isolate sound very well so you'll hear noise from outside as well as leak sound from the inside.  The highs are crisp and tight, but sound a bit too harsh at times and lack the richness and clarity of higher end headphones.  They aren't bad by any means, but they don't sound natural...in short they sound cheap and plasticy.  The snares and cymbals sound crisp, but something is amiss in that they are a bit harsh and lack the natural PRAT that higher end headphones might give.  The mids are slightly recessed and the vocals again sound plasticy.  Male vocals lack the richness and depth that they should have, while the female vocals lack the lushness and might become slightly sibilant at times.  The bass is punchy and clean but lackluster and don't extend low very well, so anyone who listens heavily to jazz, rap, hip-hop, etc should stay away from these.  These are strictly headphones for listening to rock. 
 
So overall, are they worth $150?  Build quality wise, sure...but sound quality wise, more like $100.  Again they aren't for everyone and people who listen primarily to rock would enjoy these but everyone else should steer clear.  Sound quality is a mixed bag in that all the frequencies sound clean, tight and punchy but they lack depth, extension and lushness.
 

Your sound quality review sounds like how I'd review the B&W P5's.
 

 

[Argyris]

There are some spots that don't come off.

 

[Randolph Duke]

looking for a walkabout pair for iphones.
How would these compare with Ultrasone 580?

 

[MaxwellDemon]

 
Quote:

looking for a walkabout pair for iphones.
How would these compare with Ultrasone 580?

 
In my mind, the Ultrasone 580 is a competitor to Beats Studio (in my opinion, better than the Beats Studio).
 
I don't think the Aviator will sound better than that, since they are both fashion statements (which means they are overpriced in the audio perspective) instead of an audiophilic statement. However, take my assumption with a grain of salt, I don't own the Aviator, but I have done an extensive listening session with the Ultrasone 580.

 

[Shaggy-FOO]

I think the B&W P5 sound much better than these.  The p5 sound warm and filling while the aviators sound dry and plasticy. 

 

[baka1969]

Different strokes I suppose. I'll take the Shure 840 at typical street prices.
 
 
EDIT: The M50 if you want more bump in the rump. Of the Skullcandy things I've har or heard, not one I thought was worth the price.

 

[tazzydnc]

 
Quote:

I think the B&W P5 sound much better than these.  The p5 sound warm and filling while the aviators sound dry and plasticy. 

 
Yeah the P5 is on another level.  If I'd spent more time listening to the P5's I wouldn't have been nearly as impressed with the Rocnations but hey, my opinion on headphones is only relative to the pairs I've heard, and I've only heard what's availible at the Apple store Best buy. 

 

[Lex]

Quote:

 
 
In my mind, the Ultrasone 580 is a competitor to Beats Studio (in my opinion, better than the Beats Studio).
 

Light-years better. Almost incomparable.