[hamoor]

Quote:

 
Plasticy headphones like beats and skullcandy look like cheap toys to me.  Maybe the inference on the company's part is that people who can afford these cans aren't aesthetically bankrupt teenagers?
 
 

not necessarily, look at the HD800. what a beauty!!
this headphone truly represent it high place among other headphones with a design that screams HIGH-END.
 
but wood??? come on is this is the 80s?

 

[driver 8]

I wish it was sometimes :/

 

[rmsanger]

I think these are understated and sexy...
 

 

 

[driver 8]

The HD800 isn't the shiny colored plastic I was talking about.
 
I think it's worth noting that your average consumer has probably never been acquainted with true high-end products from any field, which are generally minimalistic - speaking through build quality and raw form rather than decoration.

 

[zachsilvey]

How can you say the LCD-2 is ugly. It is one of the best looking pair of cans out there. Wood is timeless when it's done right and it's done right on the LCD-2.

 

[Byakushiki]

I'd say M80's are one of the best for looks out there. Plus you can advertise yourself. Why bother being a billboard for whatever brand headphone you're wearing when you can promote yourself?

 

[Nepenthe]

I think ugly is beautiful. The LCD is audacious and monstrous and unapologetically big and cumbersome. The M50 looks like a utilitarian tool. The HE-500 looks like something some guy made in the garage. They're all beautiful for these reasons. I'll elaborate later...

 

[Astrozombie]

A lot of them, but Bose/Beats/Skullcandy are even worse.

 

[Ubersanger]

Actually, I think that the Beats look like a cheap piece of crappy plastic. When I found out their cost, I thought it was ridiculous so I don't see how you can call out other headphones while holding those up as some great piece of work.
 
I do think these are pretty nice looking:

 
 

 

[Maverickmonk]

I enjoy the look of the grado's, but thats only because they suit my style (leather jacket, brown messengerbag, wood Grado's, they actually fit pretty well with me).
I admit some of the headphones are weird, but the HD800 (Along with Sony SA-5000 and of course the Sony Qualia) look definitely high tech and high end, although admittedly a little weird when you're wearing them. The ultrasone models all look quite classy in my eyes, with just the right amount of "bling", and an understated headband that is very low-profile on the head. The Beyer DT1350 looks quite classy as well in my opinion. Phiathon headphones look just gorgeous.
 
I will concede that AKG's look like alien brain-suckers (with the exception of the new akg-550), but that's probably because they were originally studio headphones, and they haven't changed the outer design a whole lot.
 
And ubersanger, I agree, the AudioTechnica headphones look great. (AD900,2000, the wood series, and the es7/9/10)

 

[kingpage]

Quote:

not necessarily, look at the HD800. what a beauty!!
this headphone truly represent it high place among other headphones with a design that screams HIGH-END.
 
but wood??? come on is this is the 80s?

 
HD800s are the ugliest high-end headphones, in my opinion.
 
Although you said beauty is subjective, I don't think you really truly understand that concept yourself. All you have expressed is your own prejudice against designs made out of wood, and preference for other materials.
 
"Beats, Bose, Skullcandy" are just plastic-looking things that are colourful and shiny to attract a certain demographic group, to which you, sir, also belong.

 

[obzilla]

Cellphones and laptops are marketed to a large demographic, so the functionality takes a hit for mass visual appeal.
Audiophile headphones are targeted to a very small niche market of consumer who are willing to adorn themselves with things as ridiculous looking as the AKG 1000, anything by Grado and so forth, because it is truly the performance that is paramount, everything else is tantamount or even circumstantial.
 
Horses for courses. Apple could never sell a tube based product because the "science project look" would clash with the black lint free turtlenecks, and colorfly will never reach the iMasses because "there is no difference between 128k and lossless".
 
That said, the LCD2s are right sexy. Future landfill products might have snazzier lines and shinier paint, but they are not sexier because of that.
Build quality and robustness are thing to be taken into consideration when evaluating "sexy".
As said above, beats and skullcandy et all, are so much injection molded junk to my eyes, and wood, tubes and billet aluminum, those are things of beauty.

 

[Ishcabible]

Erm, what's your thing against wood? Wood is typically a symbol of luxury. How many high end cars are laden with shiny plastic like the Beats? I'd prefer that the LCD's use a grill like the HE series though. The HE5 looked pretty rad.
 
Grados look that way because, well, how else would they make them? The drivers ideally need a small chamber and an open back. The Beats design the housing first and shoehorn a driver with little regard to how they sound.
 
And I'm pretty sure most high end headphones use metal all around. It's better for acoustic properties and are more durable. 
 
Edition 8
 
 
Versus
 
Beats Pro (broken)
 
 
T1

 
Qualia 010

 
AKG K550

 

[Aaron1006]

I agree about the LCD-2's being pretty ugly, but I think generally most of the popular high end phones now are quite nice looking. I really like the Hifiman design, HD800's look quite futuristic and cool IMO, the new W3000ANV is gorgeous. I have to admit I'm a sucker for the black/silver designs, but I find some of the woods quite beautiful as well. I think the cheap Skullcandies and Beats looks cheap and toy-ish honestly.

 

[hamoor]

wood on electronics equipments look horrible imo.
sure everyone have their opinion, but try showing the LCD-2 to a non audiophile because sometimes we may be a lil bit biased about the things that we love and hear what they say about it looks compared to the beats.