Puurpose wrote

r00t_b33r wrote

Puurpose wrote

r00t_b33r wrote

Puurpose wrote

r00t_b33r wrote

Puurpose wrote I DON"T GET WHY YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!!!

Stop yelling. Please read the OP, I explained everything.

How am i yelling if im typing...

Tf??

Per the rules, typing in all caps is considered yelling. If you don't believe me, read them.

Did you read the OP?

How thats retarded.

OMFG lol

Yes I read the OP but really I still don't get why you don't like beats.

That doesn't mean it's OK to break them. It's obnoxious.

Then you didn't read the OP. This section in particular. I literally listed the reasons.

A few choice words for Beats

Click to View Content

r00t_b33r:

The build quality is inexcusably bad. They break when you put them on most often. The headband has NO flex to it, which is one of the worst design mistakes I have ever seen. It's easy to see Apple had influence over these since they are not the least bit durable, perform at a level far below their price point, and place form over function. Even then, the Beats are gaudy as sin.

One of the biggest complaints with the Corvette C6 is the crappy build materials. Plastic. The thing falls apart as you drive. Plastic is a great material some plastics are extremely strong, durable, and light, but the Beats line got it all wrong. The headband or any part that is meant to flex is no place for plastic.

The Beats also creak, rattle, and feel extremely cheap and delicate. I still have not figured out why people defend these headphones so dearly when they are just so terrible.

(To those who say Beats just need to be taken care of) You should not have to baby headphones. It's ridiculous. Especially ones that are meant to be portable. Build quality would not be such a gripe with headphones that are meant to be used with high-end desktop audio components, like the Audeze LCD-2, but the Beats are meant to be used with portable DAPs. Therefore, it is a requirement that they be built well.

People are reckless, therefore people are the true test of the durability of a product. Beats have repeatedly failed this test. They are portable headphones which have to be held to higher standards.

Ishcabible:

Headphones are tools without moving parts. You shouldn't have to take care of them out of necessity. They should be durable by design. The only moving part is the driver, which is made of a magnet and mylar, being moved by an electrical current. There's absolutely no reason for a headband to break. These cost $300; the fact that these can break shows that Monster doesn't care to invest in a product that will last their users years. And the fact that people buy them anyways shows how pathetic our culture is... It doesn't matter if we waste $300, a previously astronomical price, buying a product that'll only last a few years, max, as long as we look cool.

Studios and Pros break just as easily as Solos. For some reason, Monster decided to make the cups of the Pros aluminum but not reinforce the headband. The Studios break just as often as the Solos. For example, I was talking to someone yesterday with a pair of Studios on that he really seemed to take care of since they were so shiny. He took him off his neck to put it on his head and the headband snapped. I wish I took a picture of it, but it'd have added insult to injury.

Case in point, I have a pair of headphones from 1960. Actually, the stamped date of production is December 25, 1960. Not even the cable has broken, much less the metal headband. And they're my best sounding headphones. So much for progress.

The point is that Monster uses shoddy materials in a product that costs $300. The Beyerdynamics (DT770 Pro) I used as an example have a headband that's made of solid aluminum and still manage to make a profit. The Beats use a headband made of brittle plastic. They didn't even use good plastic! What does that tell you? Plastic is actually not that common of a material to use for good headphones too. Most have metal at the main stress points so the headbands won't snap. Heck, even the $70 Sony V6 is made mostly of metal.

The thing that's really annoying though is that there are myriad headphones that do the exact same thing Beats do, but better, for much cheaper. I mean it's cool to defend your purchase, but only if you have legitimate facts and comparisons to back your stance. What I mean by that is that if you're saying Beats are the best thing ever, you better have tried a Sennheiser HD650, AKG K701, Sony XB1000, Grado SR325i, and a Beyerdynamic DT990--all of which cost about the same as the Studios, or even cheaper. Otherwise, you're talking out of your **** and if you do that in the real world, you'll be eaten alive just as much, maybe even more. We aren't disputing theoretical preferences (Sound is just as objective as subjective; a violin will always sound like a violin, a guitar, only a guitar. As humans, we tend to want natural sound, which anything super bassy doesn't give us, but we can be tricked into wanting something different.), we're disputing the incessant ignorance that runs rabidly within the Beats society. (Not the Beat Generation though. Those were some cool cats.) But still, Beats are objectively bad. Subjectively, maybe something else, but they legitimately are far from impressive.

It's like Beats are a grail of an object. Not really, even in an objective sense. They aren't expensive when taking the fact that there are headphones that cost $7,000 into account, they don't sound very nice at all, nor are they really a good value in any sense. They just teach our generation that it's okay to pay for what's essentially advertising costs as long as other people have them and it makes them look cool, which I guess is a case of Social Darwinism at its finest, in that the people that always follow the crowd will probably suck in the future, but still. I don't like that Monster is getting all this money and influencing the market in such a way. They may lead some people to getting better headphones, but for the rest of their customers, they will expect a colored sound in everything, which may ruin the music industry even more than it is today.

Y'see, the thing I don't like is that the popularity of Beats is that it shows a precedence that companies can make a sub-par headphone with crappy build and sell it for insane profit as long as it looks good, making a mockery of consumers. That's not really what we want. I mean, if the Beats sounded good and were made like a pair of headphones should be, most people wouldn't give a damn. Well, we'd still be annoyed by some of the owners, but that's easier to deal with. The main thing though is that it's going to start a trend of headphones that are minimalistic to the wrong degree.

(Why you should still care about spending money on good headphones) Because in an ideal circumstance, the $300 headphone will sound exponentially better. The thing I really don't like about our generation is that music just isn't something that's really important in our lives. Sure, we may listen to it, but we don't really appreciate it. A couple decades ago, a really nice stereo system was drooled after, kind of like a huge TV nowadays. If someone had a pair of ESL63's, they were probably the best family ever. Now, if someone had a pair of ESL63's, your average Joe would complain about how ugly they look and how they have no bass.

Here's what I think of the Solos: The Solos successfully give you neither deep bass nor clear sound. They're probably the worst value anywhere Even for $30 they'd be a sketchy buy since they sound so hilariously bad. I didn't really like my Klipsch Image Ones stock-it was so muddy that I've seen cleaner pigs, and they still handily beat the Solos. I don't mind the Studios or Pros, but the Solos are a crime to aural cavities everywhere. I preferred the JVC Marshmallows to them. They're a $5 earphone. The Solos are that tragically horrible. I could go on for hours about how much of an embarrassment to the hobby the Solos are, being outclassed by even Monster's cheapest products, but I'll save my time. But seriously, don't ever consider them.

The Studios are a bit of an embarrassment too. They're touted as being "what the artist intended." That's cool, if the only thing you listen to is rap for the rest of your life. What does Dre know about Miles Davis? Do you really think Miles wanted the string bass to be louder than his trumpet? The Studios sound nothing like real life. Frankly,I've never head a headphone that sounds like real life. The closest I've ever gotten was the $700 Hifiman HE500, and they still didn't sound like real life. If they were marketed as a bassy headphone, I'd be fine with that, but the last thing we need is a bunch of teenie boppers who think bass is the only thing important with the sound mastering the music of the future. That's what Beats are essentially doing, and they're killing the music industry with that. In addition, they're advertised as having deep bass. No they don't. They don't even reach past 30hz, which I barely consider deep. They have midbass, which absolutely any headphone can provide. Don't even get me started on their midrange and treble. I don't mind how they sound, it's just that they sound like $50 headphones with a $300 price tag.

The Pros are really only worth about $150 when it comes to sound. They sound fun, but they sound completely unnatural in a way that most people would find pleasing. And I can't really fault them on that. However, I find that they're the weirdest sounding headphones ever. They don't sound bad per say, but they sound like every single frequency was EQ'ed upwards. The sound is completely hyped in a way that's almost indescribable. The bass is boomy, yet doesn't collapse onto the mids, the mids sound sharp (as in tuning; an A sounds like an A#, a B-B#, and so on) and the treble is bordering on strident. Again, they aren't terrible headphones, but as with everything else in the Beats range, they're more form than function.

And others:

It's funny when people buy the studio edition and think they are cool. When true studio head phones should never be bass heavy at all. They should always be neutral. Basically it is a headset for people who have a lot of money and no real musical talent or even taste.
-RDCA

didn't really need proof..
i've known that beats "suck" ever since i got into sound engineering.
It's a shame so many kids are so **** stupid and think they're the best.
-Fan

Sony mdr xb500's destroy beats with the specs and the price they where 50
the sonys - 4-24,000 Hz lower the first number the lower the bass..
Sony mdr xb500's 104 Db, the reason why there only 104 db is because the sound is even and good quality unlike the beats.
Dr dre studio pros.
20-20,000 115 Db
oh and the tours well you can get similar headphones for 17
Doesn't that prove to anybody how **** dr beats are, i agree they look alright
but there not worth the price tags

Overall The sony's and Jvc's are better simply because of the price tag and the amount of power you get for it..
Jvc explosive in ear headphones are the same as tours for 17
and the bass is better and them headphones..
Also the sony mdr xb500's are on the low end of the Xb range
-dava96



Relevant:
Forums/t=2855653/why-beats-suck-d...money.html

Yea im pretty sure i read the OP

I have a pair of pro's and a pair of studio's.

They are still amazing.

BRONZ3 wrote Budget: $60

Music preference: Rap and Hip-Hop

Type / form factor and portability: Over Ear (Take them some places)

Open/Closed (Not for in-ear): Closed

Source(s): iPod, phone (Cosmos Touch [LG]), Computer (Desktop and MacBook)

And I'm looking for some decent in ears


Budget: $30

Music preference: Rap and Hip-Hop

Type / form factor and portability: In Ears (Take them everywhere)

Open/Closed (Not for in-ear): N/A

Source(s): iPod

Move wrote Good Post bro i'm not sure why this is not stickied yet..........It sounds like you know what your talking about...stay positive..

Puurpose wrote Beats are raw. They don't have bad quality. Just because they are overpriced and crap doesn't mean you can go crazy and piss your pants because you cant afford them.