[LostOne.TR]

has the OP been back to read this?

 

[nickdawg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1nf1n1tygame /img/forum/go_quote.gif but seriously? you don't see how dumb there marketing is? they know only i sertain kind of people will buy them, and they know those are the people that think there stock iphone buds sound good, therefor finding this a pretty big upgrade.

Yeah, people who can't afford to drop $100+ on high end IEMs. I see many Skullcandy on my college campus. Any of the low-end IEM contenders(Skullcandy, JVC marshmallows, vmoda, etc) are better than the stock buds that come with ipods.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickdawg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, people who can't afford to drop $100+ on high end IEMs. I see many Skullcandy on my college campus. Any of the low-end IEM contenders(Skullcandy, JVC marshmallows, vmoda, etc) are better than the stock buds that come with ipods.

I disagree. The iBuds sound more balanced than the bloated bass-biased canalphones that make the whole musical spectrum sound out of tune.

 

[Hrama]

Alright, I feel I have to add to this, even if it is my first post on Head-Fi. (Yay and such) Now, I must admit, I own the Skullcandy Lowriders and I have to say, they aren't as purely loathsome as people make them seem. Compared to some other stock and low-price replacement MP3/CD player headphones, they're not too horrendous in the sound department. I'm not going to comment on the looks of these things, it's a moot point for me, because I don't wear them in public, so, I'll leave the debate of that up to you guys.

Now, I've compared the Lowriders with my old Sony MDR-V150's, the closest things I have to them, and they actually perform a bit better I think. Highs have a bit more crisp to them, and bass, while not good by a long shot, is not quite as horrid, though they do seem to distort sooner than the Sony's at higher volume levels. Soundstage seems a bit more open and as such, sound doesn't seem as congested. Comfort isn't too bad, for a cheap supraaural model, they're adjustable and fit decently upon the head and it's rather nice they fold up into a neat, little, portable package. Cord length could definitely be longer, but I like to use them with my computer, so length becomes an issue with anything. It's fine for most people's portable needs I think. As far as build quality, they do feel really light and cheaply made, honestly. The cords are as thin as is possible, the plastic headband is pretty inferior, offering the bare minimum amount of "pleather" or and they have no real sense of solidity, with the earcups twisting and flailing about randomly when not being worn, an obvious byproduct of their "foldability".

Overall, I wouldn't recommend them though, at their current price point. At an MSRP of $35 or so, there are far better choices out there, as other people have already named though, at a more reasonable price point of oh, let's say... $20-$25, I might say they're a half-decent value, but even then, they'd have a healthy amount of competition. Now, I just bought a pair of HD-650's and do they blow the poor Lowriders (as well as everything else I've ever owned) away in every conceivable catagory? Absolutely, but they aren't the absolute worst out there.

By the way, since I'm here, thank you Head-Fi for making my first, serious headphone purchase a wonderful one. Did all my research and learning here and couldn't be happier with my HD-650s. Now to find a good amp to power them with...

 

[CodeToad]

My Senn PX100 smoke the Ink'd SkunkCandies I bought for 8 bucks. I can't stand those in ear plugs.

 

[nickdawg]

There's hope for this thread afterall! Maybe we can revive it and save it from the "retardphones"comment.

Welcome to Head-Fi. Great first post by the way!

 

[Foe-hammer]

skullcandy, bose... oh my!

 

[Agnostic]

I think part of the reason why people on Head-Fi have such a strong dislike for Skullcandy (apart from sound quality) is that they market headphones as (teenage) fashion accessories instead of tools for sound reproduction.

Anyway, i wanted to share this from another Skullcandy bashing thread a while ago

:
Quote:

Come on, they've got fake bullets on them, they've GOT to be cool.

Quote:

they're not bullets, theyre tiny suicide pills for your ears

 

[oogens]

hmm if they're being compared to v150's, then something isn't very good lol. they're good as far as being better than stock, but they look absurd and are expensive for what you get. panasonic htx7's or portapros i think still look pretty slick and can be had for ~30-40 i think. better choice all around, and you can pull these phones out in 10 years and not feel dumb. less "fad-ish"

 

[Townyj]

Id rather wear my A900's in public then be caught with those things on my head imo... Ive heard skullcandies and mmmm average.

 

[babya]

Had a Skullcandy headphone-the sound went in bth earpieces quicker than any others in my collection.

 

[nickdawg]

^^Which one?

 

[genclaymore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think part of the reason why people on Head-Fi have such a strong dislike for Skullcandy (apart from sound quality) is that they market headphones as (teenage) fashion accessories instead of tools for sound reproduction. Anyway, i wanted to share this from another Skullcandy bashing thread a while ago :

And I thought there normal headphones was bad looking. But man that is ugly. Look like it fell in some white paint with bullets glued on.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genclaymore /img/forum/go_quote.gif And I thought there normal headphones was bad looking. But man that is ugly. Look like it fell in some white paint with bullets glued on.

They should also glue a Glock on it to complete the design.

 

[nickdawg]

Now, now. Let's stick to SQ.