[62ohm]

It appears that 'sonic preference' is the same for everyone irrespective of age, culture, and job.
 
Got this link from another thread, try reading it from the start. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16343460/Olive%20ALMA%202014%20Winter%20Symposium%20Headphone%20Talk%20copy.key.pdf 
 
At the end of the day, Beats house sound is not preferable after all...

 

[Coq de Combat]

  It appears that 'sonic preference' is the same for everyone irrespective of age, culture, and job.
 
Got this link from another thread, try reading it from the start. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16343460/Olive%20ALMA%202014%20Winter%20Symposium%20Headphone%20Talk%20copy.key.pdf 
 
At the end of the day, Beats house sound is not preferable after all...

It's probably important to note that it's a statistical presentation of the results for the population they measured, and not meant to be a guide as to how you're supposed to like your sound; that on average their respondents tended to prefer a neutral sound, but it's okay for us not to. I would've wanted to listen to their presentation though, and know they dealt with selection bias and how representative their sample was to the population in question, among other things. Personally, non-scientifically speaking, I'm not sure if the respondents answer what they really think as opposed to what they think they should answer. If I was chosen to do such a test, I'm sure I'd straighten up and go for as neutral a sound as I possibly could, pass with a smile, and then go home to relax and listen to boomy basshead music.
 
But maybe that's just me.

 

[thievesarmy]

why would you lie on a test asking for YOUR subjective listening preference? 

 

[62ohm]

  why would you lie on a test asking for YOUR subjective listening preference? 

 
That's not the point. The point is even in this bass-heavy era, blindfolded, people still disliked Beats.
 
You can clearly see on the very last table that when 219 blindfolded listeners were asked for which headphones they preferred, Beats were not very preferable.

 

[thievesarmy]

I was referring to Coq, who said if he was tested he would answer what he thought he SHOULD say, instead of what he actually preferred. 

 

[Coq de Combat]

  why would you lie on a test asking for YOUR subjective listening preference? 

Probably because that would be what I would think I'd like when asked in such an environment by such professionals. There are lots of reasons for dishonesty, "faulty answers" (ones you later regret) or such in surveys or tests like these. The reasons aren't interesting though, but the statistical tools they must've used to account for them are. Basically, I want to know the validity and, most importantly, the reliability of those tests. Those slides could just as well be plastered all over head-fi as some sort of proof for any outrageous thing, and most head-fiers would take it as gospel.

 

[GearMe]

  Originally Posted by Coq de Combat /img/forum/go_quote.gif

It's probably important to note that it's a statistical presentation of the results for the population they measured, and not meant to be a guide as to how you're supposed to like your sound; that on average their    respondents tended to prefer a neutral sound, but it's okay for us not to.     I would've wanted to listen to their presentation though, and know they dealt with selection bias and how representative their sample was to the population in question, among other things. Personally, non-scientifically speaking, I'm not sure if the respondents answer what they really think as opposed to what they think they should answer. If I was chosen to do such a test, I'm sure I'd straighten up and go for as neutral a sound as I possibly could, pass with a smile, and then go home to relax and listen to boomy basshead music.  
But maybe that's just me.

 Just to be sure we're on the same page...It's not OK!
 
     Originally Posted by Coq de Combat /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Probably because that would be what I would think I'd like when asked in such an environment by such professionals. There are lots of reasons for dishonesty, "faulty answers" (ones you later regret) or such in surveys or tests like these. The reasons aren't interesting though, but the statistical tools they must've used to account for them are. Basically, I want to know the validity and, most importantly, the reliability of those tests. Those slides could just as well be plastered all over head-fi as some sort of      proof for any outrageous thing, and most head-fiers would take it as gospel.

THAT...would NEVER happen!
 

 

[Coq de Combat]

  THAT...would NEVER happen!
 

 
You have to be careful here though. Leaving a paper here with the tiniest resemblence to "audiophile science" is like leaving crayons and scissors to unguarded children in a kindergarten: at best you'll end up with some badly drawn doodle, but most likely it'll just end up with a bloody mess and cluttered walls.

 

[nixkid]

  I actually agree with this, it's kinda like the piracy debate. I'm of the opinion that piracy is good just like I'm of the opinion that beats are good; not as headphones, but as a boost to the industry.
 
There we're far fewer audiophiles before the bass craze and there are far more good headphones now.

I've made this argument before, its not well received around these parts but its true.  Hang around /r/headphones on reddit and you'll start to notice that there are quite a few people popping up looking to "upgrade from Beats" or people who previously had Beats but now own "good" headphones.  Beats are a lot of people's first exposure to expensive headphones.  Before Beats, the average consumer expected headphones to cost well below $100.  Its changing customer attitudes about the worth of headphones and growing the $200+ headphone market.  Sure, not everyone will "see the light" and convert to something head-fi approved but some will and thats creating increased demand for Senns, Beyer, Hifiman, V-Moda, AKG, Denon, Audeze, etc.  All and all its a good thing.

 

[62ohm]

  Basically, I want to know the validity and, most importantly, the reliability of those tests. Those slides could just as well be plastered all over head-fi as some sort of proof for any outrageous thing, and most head-fiers would take it as gospel.

 
If it was the other way around and the respondents actually preferred Beats I'm quite certain this statement would not take place..

 

[Minarets]

 I actually agree with this, it's kinda like the piracy debate. I'm of the opinion that piracy is good just like I'm of the opinion that beats are good; not as headphones, but as a boost to the industry.
 
There we're far fewer audiophiles before the bass craze and there are far more good headphones now.

I've made this argument before, its not well received around these parts but its true.  Hang around /r/headphones on reddit and you'll start to notice that there are quite a few people popping up looking to "upgrade from Beats" or people who previously had Beats but now own "good" headphones.  Beats are a lot of people's first exposure to expensive headphones.  Before Beats, the average consumer expected headphones to cost well below $100.  Its changing customer attitudes about the worth of headphones and growing the $200+ headphone market.  Sure, not everyone will "see the light" and convert to something head-fi approved but some will and thats creating increased demand for Senns, Beyer, Hifiman, V-Moda, AKG, Denon, Audeze, etc.  All and all its a good thing.

Well said

 

[Coq de Combat]

   
If it was the other way around and the respondents actually preferred Beats I'm quite certain this statement would not take place..

I'm not surprised. Still, "marketing research" with a JBL logo all over the place probably shouldn't be taken as proof, right?

 

[62ohm]

  I'm not surprised. Still, "marketing research" with a JBL logo all over the place probably shouldn't be taken as proof, right?

 
Probably try googling the conductor "Sean Olive" before questioning its validity 

 

[wink]

Quote:ThickGlasses

 I'm of the opinion that piracy is good just like I'm of the opinion that beats are good; not as headphones, but as a boost to the industry.

The real pity here is that they would far better for the industry if the beats sounded half decent.
 
Goes to show how marketing hype trumps reality in life.
 
Joseph Goebbels said that if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth.
 
Marketing has never recovered from this discovery.

 

[TsukiNick]

I've tried just about every beats headphone.  Honestly they aren't terrible headphones.  Sure for the price there are subjectively superior headphones, but come one we all have to admit we wished our headphones looked as nice as those Beats Mixrs.
 
If someone knows a way to put a better driver on the Mixrs I would consider buying them simply because that is a really nice looking headphone.