Read my prior post. My whole point is that Apple at its core is more about substance. Style matters, but your point about the Mac Pro attests to Apple being very much an engineering and innovation-driven company. If anything, the Beats acquisition denigrates Apple's brand image, precisely because Beats exemplifies the very style-over-substance credo that clueless media critics and "analysts" accuse Apple of following. Apple's products are fashion-savvy, but they also have considerable attention to detail and class-leading engineering behind them. That combination is what makes Apple unique and why the company attracts the kind of loyalty that it does.
And before you go on about what Beats claims and doesn't claim, just look at the names for their headphone lineup -- "Studio"; "Mixr" and "Pro". Is that not trading on some image that goes beyond mere fashion and hipness? Or have you not seen the TV ads with Dre in the studio?
Then, let's look at the byline for the Beats "Pro" model -- "The Headphones Used to Mix In Every Major Studio." Are you saying that's "not claiming to be studio reference headphones"?
As I indicated in my prior post, I can see the strategic value of the Beats Music service. In the context of recent social media acquisitions and content deals getting inked in broadcast media, $3.2 billion hardly raises an eyebrow. But, the Beats hardware lineup is something that indeed isn't up to Apple's standards, especially since unlike the earbuds that Apple throws in as a freebie with an iPhone or iPod, Beats charges for their earbuds and headphones, and charges a lot. Apple products aren't cheap either, but they will also typically deliver very high value for the price. Apple's competitors simply don't deliver a comparable or better product for half the price. Can't say the same for Beats products.
Good catch. Looks like I was incorrect in my assumption that they were not considered professional grade. Oh well…I did read some reviews on the "Pro" now that you mentioned it and they get some decent scores although they still have the overpowered bass response issue.
The ones that they sell in the major electronic retailer outlets are the ones we see on the street and those are certainly not "pro" quality, more like the fashion statement that I was referring to.
The boosted, mushy bass is the substance around which the headphones are designed. It isn't a style so much as the driving force behind the attitude that the music expresses. The bass propels the beats, and the beats inside the headphones are what gives "the new kid" (Iovine's term) the will to survive in the hostile urban rigged game that we call society.
Unfortunately for us assimilated types who are still attached to a real, full and balanced spectrum, Beats is on to the sound track of the future, where the planetary tribal bass beat is on the ascent. White kids are in this too, because it's the old 5000 y.o.Indo-European system of domination that's losing its grip, and any kid can see the bankruptcy.
Anyway, of course Beats Pro headphones are used for reference, because the boosted bass inside your urban survival headphones is exactly what they're after. It's a new world, a much bigger market than Apple's normal staid and sanitized clientele, but they're probably going to try to make the best of it. Or make it better, just like everything else they do(except for the white earbuds, although the EarPods were a great improvement.)
Finally, I'm listening to Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" on this very subject right now about acoustic ecology. Very interesting. WBUR
Read my prior post. My whole point is that Apple at its core is more about substance. Style matters, but your point about the Mac Pro attests to Apple being very much an engineering and innovation-driven company. If anything, the Beats acquisition denigrates Apple's brand image, precisely because Beats exemplifies the very style-over-substance credo that clueless media critics and "analysts" accuse Apple of following. Apple's products are fashion-savvy, but they also have considerable attention to detail and class-leading engineering behind them. That combination is what makes Apple unique and why the company attracts the kind of loyalty that it does.
And before you go on about what Beats claims and doesn't claim, just look at the names for their headphone lineup -- "Studio"; "Mixr" and "Pro". Is that not trading on some image that goes beyond mere fashion and hipness? Or have you not seen the TV ads with Dre in the studio?
Then, let's look at the byline for the Beats "Pro" model -- "The Headphones Used to Mix In Every Major Studio." Are you saying that's "not claiming to be studio reference headphones"?
As I indicated in my prior post, I can see the strategic value of the Beats Music service. In the context of recent social media acquisitions and content deals getting inked in broadcast media, $3.2 billion hardly raises an eyebrow. But, the Beats hardware lineup is something that indeed isn't up to Apple's standards, especially since unlike the earbuds that Apple throws in as a freebie with an iPhone or iPod, Beats charges for their earbuds and headphones, and charges a lot. Apple products aren't cheap either, but they will also typically deliver very high value for the price. Apple's competitors simply don't deliver a comparable or better product for half the price. Can't say the same for Beats products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Good catch. Looks like I was incorrect in my assumption that they were not considered professional grade. Oh well…I did read some reviews on the "Pro" now that you mentioned it and they get some decent scores although they still have the overpowered bass response issue.
The ones that they sell in the major electronic retailer outlets are the ones we see on the street and those are certainly not "pro" quality, more like the fashion statement that I was referring to.
The boosted, mushy bass is the substance around which the headphones are designed. It isn't a style so much as the driving force behind the attitude that the music expresses. The bass propels the beats, and the beats inside the headphones are what gives "the new kid" (Iovine's term) the will to survive in the hostile urban rigged game that we call society.
Unfortunately for us assimilated types who are still attached to a real, full and balanced spectrum, Beats is on to the sound track of the future, where the planetary tribal bass beat is on the ascent. White kids are in this too, because it's the old 5000 y.o.Indo-European system of domination that's losing its grip, and any kid can see the bankruptcy.
Anyway, of course Beats Pro headphones are used for reference, because the boosted bass inside your urban survival headphones is exactly what they're after. It's a new world, a much bigger market than Apple's normal staid and sanitized clientele, but they're probably going to try to make the best of it. Or make it better, just like everything else they do(except for the white earbuds, although the EarPods were a great improvement.)
Finally, I'm listening to Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" on this very subject right now about acoustic ecology. Very interesting. WBUR
To the left-brained man, the whole-brained man seems mad. But in case you weren't kidding, a couple of mushroom trips for you, and pay attention this time. Try Aldous Huxley's Island, his last novel. The best mind Britain produced in the 20th century. Joyce was ok too, but he had to be decoded. Huxley just laid it out for you.
Edit: I know, he was Irish, Joyce, not British. Anyway, it's a little late for a lobotomy, since I'm 72.
The boosted, mushy bass is the substance around which the headphones are designed. It isn't a style so much as the driving force behind the attitude that the music expresses. The bass propels the beats, and the beats inside the headphones are what gives "the new kid" (Iovine's term) the will to survive in the hostile urban rigged game that we call society.
The thing though is that type of bass is not difficult to reproduce, if you don't care how it impacts the other sounds. Even venerable audiophile darling Sennheiser once marketed a lineup of bass-tilted headphones aimed at younger listeners. They too sounded like crap, but at least they only set you back $150, rather than the nearly $300 that Dre wants from you. Anyway, at least I got a laugh out of this.
Quote:
Anyway, of course Beats Pro headphones are used for reference, because the boosted bass inside your urban survival headphones is exactly what they're after. It's a new world, a much bigger market than Apple's normal staid and sanitized clientele, but they're probably going to try to make the best of it. Or make it better, just like everything else they do(except for the white earbuds, although the EarPods were a great improvement.)
Except that using bass-boosted headphones in the studio for monitoring will actually result in the less bass in the actual recordings if they don't use any other reference. That would explain all those photos of Dre in the studio wearing Sony studio headphones (very flat and linear, like a lot of other common studio equipment). For big time megabass (note to Sony, I'm using this term in the generic sense), you would actually want to use flat or even anemic sounding monitors, and then crank the big boom into the recording. This way, the listener will actually hear even bigger bass when they slap on a pair of boom-enabled cans. That is the objective, isn't it?
Going into the wayback machine, a generation ago, 15" JBL studio monitors were all the rage for mixing and mastering rock albums. Albums like this were made for gargantuan woofers, which of course, also meant that they tended to sound dead and lifeless when played on more linear sounding speakers. If you have a stash of classic rock albums, you haven't really heard them the way they were meant to be heard until you play them on a pair of full sized JBL or Cerwin Vega floorstanders.
The thing though is that type of bass is not difficult to reproduce, if you don't care how it impacts the other sounds. Even venerable audiophile darling Sennheiser once marketed a lineup of bass-tilted headphones aimed at younger listeners. They too sounded like crap, but at least they only set you back $150, rather than the nearly $300 that Dre wants from you. Anyway, at least I got a laugh out of this.
Except that using bass-boosted headphones in the studio for monitoring will actually result in the less bass in the actual recordings if they don't use any other reference. That would explain all those photos of Dre in the studio wearing Sony studio headphones (very flat and linear, like a lot of other common studio equipment). For big time megabass (note to Sony, I'm using this term in the generic sense), you would actually want to use flat or even anemic sounding monitors, and then crank the big boom into the recording. This way, the listener will actually hear even bigger bass when they slap on a pair of boom-enabled cans. That is the objective, isn't it?
Going into the wayback machine, a generation ago, 15" JBL studio monitors were all the rage for mixing and mastering rock albums. Albums like this were made for gargantuan woofers, which of course, also meant that they tended to sound dead and lifeless when played on more linear sounding speakers. If you have a stash of classic rock albums, you haven't really heard them the way they were meant to be heard until you play them on a pair of full sized JBL or Cerwin Vega floorstanders.
Interesting. Thanks for the patient explanation. Didn't think of that little detail, obviously.
Hey, if you want to FEEL bass and you are using the headphones while sitting in your favorite chair, maybe you might want to check out the ButtKickers!!!
I have used these before and I can tell you that with a GOOD power amp, these things DO work, and they are great so you don't have to blow your ear drums out.
You can crank it as much as you want. I wish people would use these in their cars instead of those annoying sub woofers that just cost TONS of money, take up a TON of room and rattle cars apart while they annoy people in a 200 foot radius.
Beats headphones have everything. Great styling....a sense of culture.....they're endorsed by celeb's. What they don't have is great sound. Very bass heavy with no clear definition on the high end.
Google "beats headphones frequency response graph" and look at the images and it tells the whole story.
Apple better think twice.
Graphs don't mean anything other than a measurement. Have you compared specs to HD800's, Audeze, Stax? Have you listened to what are considered the TOP headphones amongst some of the most critical listeners other than mastering engineers? The Audiophile crowd? They don't really care much for Beats headphones. They usually go for HD800's, Audeze, Stax, Grado and a few others that are VERY accurate and uncolored and don't have enhanced bass for the rap crowd that wants artificial bass.
And what does the Legendary Bob Ludwig, who has mastered over 1300 artists has more industry awards for more albums than anyone else in the industry, use for headphones? I don't think he uses Beats. In fact, I don't think he even bothers mastering Rap music. After all, it doesn't contain all of the elements of the term "MUSIC". Oops.
Comments
The boosted, mushy bass is the substance around which the headphones are designed. It isn't a style so much as the driving force behind the attitude that the music expresses. The bass propels the beats, and the beats inside the headphones are what gives "the new kid" (Iovine's term) the will to survive in the hostile urban rigged game that we call society.
Unfortunately for us assimilated types who are still attached to a real, full and balanced spectrum, Beats is on to the sound track of the future, where the planetary tribal bass beat is on the ascent. White kids are in this too, because it's the old 5000 y.o.Indo-European system of domination that's losing its grip, and any kid can see the bankruptcy.
Anyway, of course Beats Pro headphones are used for reference, because the boosted bass inside your urban survival headphones is exactly what they're after. It's a new world, a much bigger market than Apple's normal staid and sanitized clientele, but they're probably going to try to make the best of it. Or make it better, just like everything else they do(except for the white earbuds, although the EarPods were a great improvement.)
Finally, I'm listening to Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" on this very subject right now about acoustic ecology. Very interesting. WBUR
Read my prior post. My whole point is that Apple at its core is more about substance. Style matters, but your point about the Mac Pro attests to Apple being very much an engineering and innovation-driven company. If anything, the Beats acquisition denigrates Apple's brand image, precisely because Beats exemplifies the very style-over-substance credo that clueless media critics and "analysts" accuse Apple of following. Apple's products are fashion-savvy, but they also have considerable attention to detail and class-leading engineering behind them. That combination is what makes Apple unique and why the company attracts the kind of loyalty that it does.
And before you go on about what Beats claims and doesn't claim, just look at the names for their headphone lineup -- "Studio"; "Mixr" and "Pro". Is that not trading on some image that goes beyond mere fashion and hipness? Or have you not seen the TV ads with Dre in the studio?
Then, let's look at the byline for the Beats "Pro" model -- "The Headphones Used to Mix In Every Major Studio." Are you saying that's "not claiming to be studio reference headphones"?
http://www.beatsbydre.com/headphones/
As I indicated in my prior post, I can see the strategic value of the Beats Music service. In the context of recent social media acquisitions and content deals getting inked in broadcast media, $3.2 billion hardly raises an eyebrow. But, the Beats hardware lineup is something that indeed isn't up to Apple's standards, especially since unlike the earbuds that Apple throws in as a freebie with an iPhone or iPod, Beats charges for their earbuds and headphones, and charges a lot. Apple products aren't cheap either, but they will also typically deliver very high value for the price. Apple's competitors simply don't deliver a comparable or better product for half the price. Can't say the same for Beats products.
Good catch. Looks like I was incorrect in my assumption that they were not considered professional grade. Oh well…I did read some reviews on the "Pro" now that you mentioned it and they get some decent scores although they still have the overpowered bass response issue.
The ones that they sell in the major electronic retailer outlets are the ones we see on the street and those are certainly not "pro" quality, more like the fashion statement that I was referring to.
The boosted, mushy bass is the substance around which the headphones are designed. It isn't a style so much as the driving force behind the attitude that the music expresses. The bass propels the beats, and the beats inside the headphones are what gives "the new kid" (Iovine's term) the will to survive in the hostile urban rigged game that we call society.
Unfortunately for us assimilated types who are still attached to a real, full and balanced spectrum, Beats is on to the sound track of the future, where the planetary tribal bass beat is on the ascent. White kids are in this too, because it's the old 5000 y.o.Indo-European system of domination that's losing its grip, and any kid can see the bankruptcy.
Anyway, of course Beats Pro headphones are used for reference, because the boosted bass inside your urban survival headphones is exactly what they're after. It's a new world, a much bigger market than Apple's normal staid and sanitized clientele, but they're probably going to try to make the best of it. Or make it better, just like everything else they do(except for the white earbuds, although the EarPods were a great improvement.)
Finally, I'm listening to Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" on this very subject right now about acoustic ecology. Very interesting. WBUR
You need a lobotomy.
To the left-brained man, the whole-brained man seems mad. But in case you weren't kidding, a couple of mushroom trips for you, and pay attention this time. Try Aldous Huxley's Island, his last novel. The best mind Britain produced in the 20th century. Joyce was ok too, but he had to be decoded. Huxley just laid it out for you.
Edit: I know, he was Irish, Joyce, not British. Anyway, it's a little late for a lobotomy, since I'm 72.
Quote:
The boosted, mushy bass is the substance around which the headphones are designed. It isn't a style so much as the driving force behind the attitude that the music expresses. The bass propels the beats, and the beats inside the headphones are what gives "the new kid" (Iovine's term) the will to survive in the hostile urban rigged game that we call society.
The thing though is that type of bass is not difficult to reproduce, if you don't care how it impacts the other sounds. Even venerable audiophile darling Sennheiser once marketed a lineup of bass-tilted headphones aimed at younger listeners. They too sounded like crap, but at least they only set you back $150, rather than the nearly $300 that Dre wants from you. Anyway, at least I got a laugh out of this.
Except that using bass-boosted headphones in the studio for monitoring will actually result in the less bass in the actual recordings if they don't use any other reference. That would explain all those photos of Dre in the studio wearing Sony studio headphones (very flat and linear, like a lot of other common studio equipment). For big time megabass (note to Sony, I'm using this term in the generic sense), you would actually want to use flat or even anemic sounding monitors, and then crank the big boom into the recording. This way, the listener will actually hear even bigger bass when they slap on a pair of boom-enabled cans. That is the objective, isn't it?
Going into the wayback machine, a generation ago, 15" JBL studio monitors were all the rage for mixing and mastering rock albums. Albums like this were made for gargantuan woofers, which of course, also meant that they tended to sound dead and lifeless when played on more linear sounding speakers. If you have a stash of classic rock albums, you haven't really heard them the way they were meant to be heard until you play them on a pair of full sized JBL or Cerwin Vega floorstanders.
Interesting. Thanks for the patient explanation. Didn't think of that little detail, obviously.
I have used these before and I can tell you that with a GOOD power amp, these things DO work, and they are great so you don't have to blow your ear drums out.
You can crank it as much as you want. I wish people would use these in their cars instead of those annoying sub woofers that just cost TONS of money, take up a TON of room and rattle cars apart while they annoy people in a 200 foot radius.
http://www.thebuttkicker.com
Beats headphones have everything. Great styling....a sense of culture.....they're endorsed by celeb's. What they don't have is great sound. Very bass heavy with no clear definition on the high end.
Google "beats headphones frequency response graph" and look at the images and it tells the whole story.
Apple better think twice.
Graphs don't mean anything other than a measurement. Have you compared specs to HD800's, Audeze, Stax? Have you listened to what are considered the TOP headphones amongst some of the most critical listeners other than mastering engineers? The Audiophile crowd? They don't really care much for Beats headphones. They usually go for HD800's, Audeze, Stax, Grado and a few others that are VERY accurate and uncolored and don't have enhanced bass for the rap crowd that wants artificial bass.
And what does the Legendary Bob Ludwig, who has mastered over 1300 artists has more industry awards for more albums than anyone else in the industry, use for headphones? I don't think he uses Beats. In fact, I don't think he even bothers mastering Rap music. After all, it doesn't contain all of the elements of the term "MUSIC". Oops.