What is so horrible about Skullcandy's anyway?
Jul 27, 2008 at 10:09 PM Post #61 of 105
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.


Or 'trendy' people tbh. I saw this guy, probably in his 20's, with a bloody Billabong (A 'youth brand' down here) bag, top, and t-shirt and then some bloody Skullcandy headphones at the bus stop...*facepalm*
I've helped some former Skullcandy peeps see the light thank f'n god.
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 12:46 AM Post #62 of 105
I bought my daughter a pair of them for her iPod and my god, those things are horrid. The bass is nice, but it overpowers the horrendous mids/highs by a long shot. Even at $14 I felt ripped off
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 11:17 AM Post #64 of 105
They prolly went into the dollar store and broke some cheap headphones. Took the drivers out of those, and slap it in a whole new casing. and jack the price up.
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM Post #65 of 105
Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
pretty ironic that your name is 'I<3SQ' then :p


I guess it would be ironic if I bought them for myself, but I know better. She loves them, thinks they're great, which means less money out of my pocket so we're all happy
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 3:56 PM Post #66 of 105
So far, I listened to a few of their products. To be specific, The lowriders, the Ink'd bud, and a few others, so here's my opinion.

The lowriders were pretty terrible sounding, IMO. Maybe it's because I've been listening to my Porta pro too much, but the sound was very dirty. Bass was there, but again, very dirty. I put them off, and really wanted to smash it. Even my old Sennheiser MX450 earphones can produce better sound than that. My friend thought they were the best headphones under 50 bucks. I tried to prove him wrong, but he didn't listen, and just continued using it.

As for the Ink'd buds, they weren't half-bad, but it's $24 (Plus tax) where I live. The bass wasn't too overwhelming, and the sound wasn't muddy. However, at that price, it's a better investment to buy a JVC marshmellows, which is a few dollars apart.

And Skullcandy phones are terrible, but their IEMs would actually be pretty decent if their prices were lower.
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 3:56 PM Post #67 of 105
I've tried a couple of buds from Skullcandy and they are certainly not that great. Bass is obviously the name of the game as they absolutely irradiated the stuff, at the cost of mids and highs.

They're certainly not cans that I'd buy willingly, but I'd actually rate them over Bose from a SQ perspective. Bose is just muddied crap all around.
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 4:13 PM Post #68 of 105
Everyone's got to notice though, Skullcandy's whole marketing scheme was practically based on the design of their cans rather than their quality. And they probably know that better than anyone else.

In a business point of view, skullcandy is intelligent to focus their products to a certain group and that sound quality would be the least of their problems.

Is it a crime that they're doing this? No, not really. Should it be? Yes, probably. lol
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 7:55 PM Post #69 of 105
Quote:

Originally Posted by Xpander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They're certainly not cans that I'd buy willingly, but I'd actually rate them over Bose from a SQ perspective. Bose is just muddied crap all around.


Which model exactly would you say have better SQ than the Bose?
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 8:31 PM Post #70 of 105
Quote:

Originally Posted by I<3SQ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Which model exactly would you say have better SQ than the Bose?


I don't remember, unfortunately. I was at an electronics trade show last year and they had a booth, so I tried out a couple of IEMs. I didn't really pay too much attention to the specific models.

I just realized that I said "buds" in my last post. They were actually IEMs.
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM Post #71 of 105
I was wearing my px100s to work one day, and a guy I work with said "that cords pretty long" which it ain't that long specially compared to grados. Then he said, I have skullcandies. In a braggy way. So I just said "pssh."

It's just a terrible label. There for people who like shinny and think the more bass it has the better.
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 10:22 PM Post #72 of 105
Quote:

Originally Posted by thornygravy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I was wearing my px100s to work one day, and a guy I work with said "that cords pretty long" which it ain't that long specially compared to grados. Then he said, I have skullcandies. In a braggy way. So I just said "pssh."

It's just a terrible label. There for people who like shinny and think the more bass it has the better.


Bring in your Grados into work sometime and get that guy to listen to them. Then put on his "bragging" face to mock him
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 28, 2008 at 10:38 PM Post #74 of 105
I think it is just that people here don't want others to be ripped off, but my guess is anyone who buys skull candies for the way they look don't really care about sq anyway. And there are very good phones that sound 10x better than skullcandies for similar or lower prices. Just check around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top