This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market. Beats users strike me as teenagers listening to 128Kbs MP3 rips from piratebay, or streaming heavily compressed music from Pandora (Free). I'm sure they have no problem wearing them around friends and in public, and bragging about their "studio quality" sound.
This product line also represents a disconnect between two different types of Apple fans. We have the financial cheerleaders (shareholders and the like) and then we have company/product cheerleaders. The company/product cheerleaders like myself find Beats to be a blemish on the Apple brand. It plays into Android fan's assumptions about Apple, which are normally incorrect.
I don't feel warm and cozy because Apple is doing well in profits, I feel warm and cozy when they are making great products. Beats just isn't one of them. I actually would have been less hostile to this if they bought Bose for crying out loud. At least they have a great headphone lineup.
Whoa, slow down there. Quality is a wholly different word. I'm talking about what makes something superior in tne eyes of those who matter. In this context, it's Apple's [Beats'] paying customers. There could be a discussion about quality, of the materials used, of the product's construction, of the product's performance, etc. but that's simple a different discussion from the one I was engaged in. As for sound quality being objective, that's true only if you are speaking of sound reproduction. If tne Beats headphones crank up the base and people who buy them prefer their music that way, then that's a matter of taste, regardless of whether the sound is accurately reproduced. Beats claims it's sound adds emotion to the music. You may disagree, but again, we'd be having two different conversations.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market.
Nope. You've conflated "accuracy" with "sound quality". They are most certainly NOT the same thing. Accuracy can be measured, analyzed and graded. Even with accuracy, there may still be some areas of disagreement, for example one model might reproduce 10k+ more accurately, while another reproduces bass more accurately.
But overall sound *quality* is inherently subjective. And because it's subjective, people's opinions are influenced by marketing. Do you really think kids think their Beats headphones are crappy, but they look cool? No, they think the sound is awesome. And to them, it is. If you give them a pair of $5k reference headphones some of these kids will tell you it sounds like crap, simply because it's not the kind of sound they like.
Sorry, musical taste is subjective, but audio reproduction is hard science. You've conflated "sound quality" with "how you feel about what you're hearing". Sound quality, when evaluating reference gear like headphones, is defined by the gear's "accuracy". For audio professionals, accuracy is a very important variable measured and quantified as precisely as possible. Further, it doesn't matter how complex the sounds are, if something is broken at 10k, it's going to broken for all audio at 10k. This is all independent of consumers and "audiophiles" convincing themselves whether or not they like something.
And those $5k reference headphones also sound like crap, because ALL headphones sound like crap. Their design and primary task is inherently for isolation, not reproduction. It's not possible to adequately reproduce lower register frequencies with speakers small enough to mount on your head. Often silly psychco-acoustical tricks are used in headphone designs to fool consumer and "audiophile" dims into thinking there's "bass". However, by missing an important chunk of the usable audio spectrum, headphones are automatically inferior for audio reproduction. This is not subjective, just physics.
This is ridiculous. Unless you are a sound engineer or scientist of some type, the only thing that matters about speakers and headphones is whether or not the user enjoys the sound. I don't know what planet you're living on, but many people -- including, but not limited to, audiophiles and recording engineers -- enjoy the sound of headphones. One reason for this is that headphones avoid the biggest problem with speakers and audio systems -- the room. The listening room is often the most important and most problematic component in an audio system.
That's like bragging your Civic is faster than your buddy's Corolla, in the end nobody cares.
Bad analogy. There are more Civics and Corolla's on the road than any other vehicle. To those who drive one it's their bragging right. May not mean much to you but in Honda's and Toyota's business model that's a big piece of the pie.
Apparently the above posters have never heard of the concept of shaping the narrative, which Mr. Iovine demonstrated here in near perfect form. Talk about missing the point. Whoosh, right over their heads!
Exactly. Criticizing Iovine for his statement is absurd. He played it perfectly.
As an aside, e NFL deal is a great one for Bose, as their niche among the football watchers does spend money on themselves. But it's a terrible one for the NFL. Bose is a hugely polarizing company, a turn off to most football fans under 35, I would say. Far worse a PR move than anything they could gain from it.
Exactly except Beats is dead last. And Apple bought it- for $3Billion.
I suspect Beats and Apple doesn't care if the company is making money.
Further, the financials showed Apple would recoup the investment in 3 years (not to mention the immediate benefit of having whatever assets Apple wanted immediately). People also act like Apple can't influence the quality of Beats headphones going forward if it felt it was warranted.
I suspect Beats and Apple doesn't care if the company is making money.
Further, the financials showed Apple would recoup the investment in 3 years (not to mention the immediate benefit of having whatever assets Apple wanted immediately). People also act like Apple can't influence the quality of Beats headphones going forward if it felt it was warranted.
If Apple shareholders won't call you on your BS I guess I will.
Sorry, musical taste is subjective, but audio reproduction is hard science.
Your statement is correct, but you're still missing the point. "audio reproduction" is NOT equal to "quality". Unless you are qualifying your statement "as defined by my work as a sound engineer" (or related field), quality is indeed a subjective measure. You might think this is semantics, and you'd be partially right, but humans do not adhere to the same definition of "quality" as machine measurements do.
What is the "best" shade of grass for your lawn? Or better yet, which model car has the best "quality"? It depends on who you're talking to, not a set of numbers.
Originally Posted by redefiler
And those $5k reference headphones also sound like crap, because ALL headphones sound like crap. Their design and primary task is inherently for isolation, not reproduction. It's not possible to adequately reproduce lower register frequencies with speakers small enough to mount on your head. Often silly psychco-acoustical tricks are used in headphone designs to fool consumer and "audiophile" dims into thinking there's "bass". However, by missing an important chunk of the usable audio spectrum, headphones are automatically inferior for audio reproduction. This is not subjective, just physics.
Totally agree. Not really relevant to the above conversation though.
Comments
Whoa, slow down there. Quality is a wholly different word. I'm talking about what makes something superior in tne eyes of those who matter. In this context, it's Apple's [Beats'] paying customers. There could be a discussion about quality, of the materials used, of the product's construction, of the product's performance, etc. but that's simple a different discussion from the one I was engaged in. As for sound quality being objective, that's true only if you are speaking of sound reproduction. If tne Beats headphones crank up the base and people who buy them prefer their music that way, then that's a matter of taste, regardless of whether the sound is accurately reproduced. Beats claims it's sound adds emotion to the music. You may disagree, but again, we'd be having two different conversations.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market.
Nope. You've conflated "accuracy" with "sound quality". They are most certainly NOT the same thing. Accuracy can be measured, analyzed and graded. Even with accuracy, there may still be some areas of disagreement, for example one model might reproduce 10k+ more accurately, while another reproduces bass more accurately.
But overall sound *quality* is inherently subjective. And because it's subjective, people's opinions are influenced by marketing. Do you really think kids think their Beats headphones are crappy, but they look cool? No, they think the sound is awesome. And to them, it is. If you give them a pair of $5k reference headphones some of these kids will tell you it sounds like crap, simply because it's not the kind of sound they like.
Sorry, musical taste is subjective, but audio reproduction is hard science. You've conflated "sound quality" with "how you feel about what you're hearing". Sound quality, when evaluating reference gear like headphones, is defined by the gear's "accuracy". For audio professionals, accuracy is a very important variable measured and quantified as precisely as possible. Further, it doesn't matter how complex the sounds are, if something is broken at 10k, it's going to broken for all audio at 10k. This is all independent of consumers and "audiophiles" convincing themselves whether or not they like something.
And those $5k reference headphones also sound like crap, because ALL headphones sound like crap. Their design and primary task is inherently for isolation, not reproduction. It's not possible to adequately reproduce lower register frequencies with speakers small enough to mount on your head. Often silly psychco-acoustical tricks are used in headphone designs to fool consumer and "audiophile" dims into thinking there's "bass". However, by missing an important chunk of the usable audio spectrum, headphones are automatically inferior for audio reproduction. This is not subjective, just physics.
This is ridiculous. Unless you are a sound engineer or scientist of some type, the only thing that matters about speakers and headphones is whether or not the user enjoys the sound. I don't know what planet you're living on, but many people -- including, but not limited to, audiophiles and recording engineers -- enjoy the sound of headphones. One reason for this is that headphones avoid the biggest problem with speakers and audio systems -- the room. The listening room is often the most important and most problematic component in an audio system.
Bad analogy. There are more Civics and Corolla's on the road than any other vehicle. To those who drive one it's their bragging right. May not mean much to you but in Honda's and Toyota's business model that's a big piece of the pie.
Exactly. Criticizing Iovine for his statement is absurd. He played it perfectly.
As an aside, e NFL deal is a great one for Bose, as their niche among the football watchers does spend money on themselves. But it's a terrible one for the NFL. Bose is a hugely polarizing company, a turn off to most football fans under 35, I would say. Far worse a PR move than anything they could gain from it.
Exactly except Beats is dead last. And Apple bought it- for $3Billion.
I suspect Beats and Apple doesn't care if the company is making money.
Further, the financials showed Apple would recoup the investment in 3 years (not to mention the immediate benefit of having whatever assets Apple wanted immediately). People also act like Apple can't influence the quality of Beats headphones going forward if it felt it was warranted.
The question should be... What type of a-hole wears oversized headphones to a press conference anyway?
If it was really about breast cancer awareness, he could have worn a pink sweater or something (sans unapproved logo, of course).
The question should be... What type of a-hole wears oversized headphones to a press conference anyway?
Very true. Sadly, probably over half of the NFL is the same.
Sorry, musical taste is subjective, but audio reproduction is hard science.
Your statement is correct, but you're still missing the point. "audio reproduction" is NOT equal to "quality". Unless you are qualifying your statement "as defined by my work as a sound engineer" (or related field), quality is indeed a subjective measure. You might think this is semantics, and you'd be partially right, but humans do not adhere to the same definition of "quality" as machine measurements do.
What is the "best" shade of grass for your lawn? Or better yet, which model car has the best "quality"? It depends on who you're talking to, not a set of numbers.
And those $5k reference headphones also sound like crap, because ALL headphones sound like crap. Their design and primary task is inherently for isolation, not reproduction. It's not possible to adequately reproduce lower register frequencies with speakers small enough to mount on your head. Often silly psychco-acoustical tricks are used in headphone designs to fool consumer and "audiophile" dims into thinking there's "bass". However, by missing an important chunk of the usable audio spectrum, headphones are automatically inferior for audio reproduction. This is not subjective, just physics.
Totally agree. Not really relevant to the above conversation though.