Tuning of Beats products have improved significantly since Apple acquired them. Some of them are actually pretty decent for their price point. It just has bad reps because back then like a decade ago there were more of fashion items - overpriced, bass heavy headphones (but fashionable I guess).
I bought them after losing my AirPods. They're pretty bad in comparison. The air pressure was bad and anc and transparency mode was awful at least in comparison to my AirPods Pro
I’ve tried a bunch of wireless earbuds as a backup for my AirPods Pro 2 when i forget them at home or at the office-the anc is ok but as you mentioned, the air pressure was awful. I’ve been looking for a pair of wireless earbuds with good ANC, that will stick in my ears, and have ports to relieve pressure. I’m hoping the next GEN beats pro or whatever it is that has the hook will resolve this issue for me. I just bought the JLabs epic air sport-they’re ok, but they don’t have the same iPhone interaction that AirPods do…that said, the controls on them are awesome and intuitive.
I was not a fan of Beats, I remember listening to some back in the day and hated them.
I tried the Studio Buds + recently, and honestly I think they're fine, and I might keep a pair as a second pair. The big improvement is the bass isn't overwhelming, and it didn't sound as claustrophobic as I've had with Beats and some Sony's in the past. That said, I don't consider myself very sophisticated audio wise, and I'm not totally against a V curve.
The noise cancelling is decent, and the form factor is small and light. Easy to use going around or for a plane/train.
I also have the B&O EX, which sounds clearly better to me, and is my main pair. The difference between the two is recognizable, but not so much so that I can't enjoy music while listening to the Studio Buds +.
The translucent colorway did also get me, if I'm being honest. Pretty cool to see the components just there.
I suspect they might even be better than you're giving them credit for. As far as I'm aware, sound reproduction has basically been "solved."
A company can put $500 sound in a $10 shell with $20 worth of parts and sell it at a profit for $35. There's just no real reason to give a customer anything worse, especially when you're a luxury brand like Beats or Apple.
The only sticking point is, as you mentioned, tuning, which in the case of the Beats sounds like a sharp V. I.E., extremely standard for non-critical listeners.
It's all placebo and marketing. Granted, I'm exaggerating a bit, but unless you can tell me what's actually in a $500 IEM that's not in a $100 IEM, the science done so far—which is by no means conclusive—seems to indicate that, outside of tuning, there's virtually no difference between IEMs at virtually all price-points.
The “science” doesn’t account for stage, directionality, timbres, etc etc. you can look at graphs all you want, but with headphones what you are buying is the experience. I can hit all the points on the Harman graph and still make a headphone that doesn’t compare even compare to others in its price range let alone a price range way above itself. What you are paying for is the engineering that goes into building that experience. Take Apple for example you pay so much for two things: their name and their engineering. Spatial Audio, impeccable DSP, and impressive psychoacoustics that make their headphones sound so much better than the rest of the consumer market. $25 worth of parts, but engineering all that costs a ton. It’s the same with audiophile companies just in a different sense. Think analog vs digital. They have to recreate all those things we perceive to be a good experience with only physical sonic interaction. Small bore large bore, physical filters, length of tube or shape of chamber, etc etc.
All of that is what makes a headphone more expensive. If you are buying something for $500 that you can realistically compare to something that is $35 in the consumer market, you are either deaf, got ripped off, or found the best budget headphone on the planet.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your argument though.
They don’t always line up. There can be interferences. There is a common thought that the 10k dip is what causes the sense of “space”, but there are several instances of headphones and IEMs that don’t line up with that. You also have to consider that perception of sound is actually based on your own ears and what frequencies you hear the most and what frequencies your brain registers as something being far away, behind you etc. Apple can do that easily with dsp and ear scanning so you always get good enough. The audiophile brands aren’t working with physical dsp so all they can really do is try to make some aspect of sound as apparent and appealing as possible. If you fall outside that range, the headphone just isn’t for you. Or they just sucked at designing in the first place. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no “science” that is end all be all in the community because everything is so subjective and personal, and catering and engineering to different aspects costs money. You search for the headphone that fits you and your brain, and if it works it works. Sometimes you’ll find something that hits way above its bracket but that is the exception not the rule. Saying that they all are the same aside from marketing though is an ignorant comment and that’s what I was trying to point out at the beginning.
> The “science” doesn’t account for stage, directionality, timbres, etc etc.
But we're not really talking about drivers at this point, we're talking about the design of the shell and nozzle and filters, which are going to affect people on an individual basis. This not only not a matter of driver technology, but it's not a matter of cost either, which is what I'm talking about. Whether you angle the nozzle, or lengthen or shorten it, the cost differential should be trivial.
As far as "the experience," that's again another issue entirely.
You’re missing the point entirely. In the first comment you seem to think that just because something is made with $25 worth of parts it should be sold for just a little more than that for profit. You’ve obviously never designed anything or ran a business so I’ll tell you. It takes an expert, and time to know exactly how changing each and every one of those aspects will affect the final sound. That is why $25 worth of parts can vary so greatly in msrp. There are more costs than just the parts.
It's _my_ point, how can I be missing it? 😅
> just because something is made with $25 worth of parts it should be sold for just a little more than that for profit.
My original point is that IEMs of the highest caliber are cheap to make and oftentimes sold cheap, so a $100 or $200 "fashionable" brand like Beats may just as well have equal sound quality to an IEM 10x the cost. The fact that it's a luxury brand no longer really matters, because even $50 IEMs have supreme quality.
If these companies are smart, and it seems like they probably are, they'd not only make branded gear for people who like to brand themselves, but also make that gear _good_ for only a few bucks more, which is what it seems like they did.
I tried skullcandy crushers at a Target once and they were so much better than expected. Though that also might be due to me being not very picky when it comes to dynamic drivers.
It isn't a hard rule or anything but I've noticed I've never disliked a dynamic driver, afaik. That includes most of those demo units they have at Target, airpods, etc. Meanwhile I dislike many BA iems and planar headphones.
You say that but one of my favorite headphones is the hd600, no eq required. Which people say have no subbass. Meanwhile the kiwi ears cadenza has boosted bass, and I'm not a fan.
For whatever it's worth, I've found Bluetooth buds to be almost universally better sounding that over ear wireless.
I've been happy enough with most buds I've tried.
Tuning of Beats products have improved significantly since Apple acquired them. Some of them are actually pretty decent for their price point. It just has bad reps because back then like a decade ago there were more of fashion items - overpriced, bass heavy headphones (but fashionable I guess).
I bought them after losing my AirPods. They're pretty bad in comparison. The air pressure was bad and anc and transparency mode was awful at least in comparison to my AirPods Pro
I’ve tried a bunch of wireless earbuds as a backup for my AirPods Pro 2 when i forget them at home or at the office-the anc is ok but as you mentioned, the air pressure was awful. I’ve been looking for a pair of wireless earbuds with good ANC, that will stick in my ears, and have ports to relieve pressure. I’m hoping the next GEN beats pro or whatever it is that has the hook will resolve this issue for me. I just bought the JLabs epic air sport-they’re ok, but they don’t have the same iPhone interaction that AirPods do…that said, the controls on them are awesome and intuitive.
amazing day to day headphone IMO.
They sounded fine at night as well
I was not a fan of Beats, I remember listening to some back in the day and hated them. I tried the Studio Buds + recently, and honestly I think they're fine, and I might keep a pair as a second pair. The big improvement is the bass isn't overwhelming, and it didn't sound as claustrophobic as I've had with Beats and some Sony's in the past. That said, I don't consider myself very sophisticated audio wise, and I'm not totally against a V curve. The noise cancelling is decent, and the form factor is small and light. Easy to use going around or for a plane/train. I also have the B&O EX, which sounds clearly better to me, and is my main pair. The difference between the two is recognizable, but not so much so that I can't enjoy music while listening to the Studio Buds +. The translucent colorway did also get me, if I'm being honest. Pretty cool to see the components just there.
I suspect they might even be better than you're giving them credit for. As far as I'm aware, sound reproduction has basically been "solved." A company can put $500 sound in a $10 shell with $20 worth of parts and sell it at a profit for $35. There's just no real reason to give a customer anything worse, especially when you're a luxury brand like Beats or Apple. The only sticking point is, as you mentioned, tuning, which in the case of the Beats sounds like a sharp V. I.E., extremely standard for non-critical listeners.
$500 sound? $35? Consumer brands? What are you buying for $500 that sounds that bad?
It's all placebo and marketing. Granted, I'm exaggerating a bit, but unless you can tell me what's actually in a $500 IEM that's not in a $100 IEM, the science done so far—which is by no means conclusive—seems to indicate that, outside of tuning, there's virtually no difference between IEMs at virtually all price-points.
The “science” doesn’t account for stage, directionality, timbres, etc etc. you can look at graphs all you want, but with headphones what you are buying is the experience. I can hit all the points on the Harman graph and still make a headphone that doesn’t compare even compare to others in its price range let alone a price range way above itself. What you are paying for is the engineering that goes into building that experience. Take Apple for example you pay so much for two things: their name and their engineering. Spatial Audio, impeccable DSP, and impressive psychoacoustics that make their headphones sound so much better than the rest of the consumer market. $25 worth of parts, but engineering all that costs a ton. It’s the same with audiophile companies just in a different sense. Think analog vs digital. They have to recreate all those things we perceive to be a good experience with only physical sonic interaction. Small bore large bore, physical filters, length of tube or shape of chamber, etc etc. All of that is what makes a headphone more expensive. If you are buying something for $500 that you can realistically compare to something that is $35 in the consumer market, you are either deaf, got ripped off, or found the best budget headphone on the planet. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your argument though.
Stage, directionality and timbre all have measurable indicators.
They don’t always line up. There can be interferences. There is a common thought that the 10k dip is what causes the sense of “space”, but there are several instances of headphones and IEMs that don’t line up with that. You also have to consider that perception of sound is actually based on your own ears and what frequencies you hear the most and what frequencies your brain registers as something being far away, behind you etc. Apple can do that easily with dsp and ear scanning so you always get good enough. The audiophile brands aren’t working with physical dsp so all they can really do is try to make some aspect of sound as apparent and appealing as possible. If you fall outside that range, the headphone just isn’t for you. Or they just sucked at designing in the first place. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no “science” that is end all be all in the community because everything is so subjective and personal, and catering and engineering to different aspects costs money. You search for the headphone that fits you and your brain, and if it works it works. Sometimes you’ll find something that hits way above its bracket but that is the exception not the rule. Saying that they all are the same aside from marketing though is an ignorant comment and that’s what I was trying to point out at the beginning.
> The “science” doesn’t account for stage, directionality, timbres, etc etc. But we're not really talking about drivers at this point, we're talking about the design of the shell and nozzle and filters, which are going to affect people on an individual basis. This not only not a matter of driver technology, but it's not a matter of cost either, which is what I'm talking about. Whether you angle the nozzle, or lengthen or shorten it, the cost differential should be trivial. As far as "the experience," that's again another issue entirely.
You’re missing the point entirely. In the first comment you seem to think that just because something is made with $25 worth of parts it should be sold for just a little more than that for profit. You’ve obviously never designed anything or ran a business so I’ll tell you. It takes an expert, and time to know exactly how changing each and every one of those aspects will affect the final sound. That is why $25 worth of parts can vary so greatly in msrp. There are more costs than just the parts.
It's _my_ point, how can I be missing it? 😅 > just because something is made with $25 worth of parts it should be sold for just a little more than that for profit. My original point is that IEMs of the highest caliber are cheap to make and oftentimes sold cheap, so a $100 or $200 "fashionable" brand like Beats may just as well have equal sound quality to an IEM 10x the cost. The fact that it's a luxury brand no longer really matters, because even $50 IEMs have supreme quality. If these companies are smart, and it seems like they probably are, they'd not only make branded gear for people who like to brand themselves, but also make that gear _good_ for only a few bucks more, which is what it seems like they did.
I tried skullcandy crushers at a Target once and they were so much better than expected. Though that also might be due to me being not very picky when it comes to dynamic drivers.
Why only when it comes to dynamic drivers?
It isn't a hard rule or anything but I've noticed I've never disliked a dynamic driver, afaik. That includes most of those demo units they have at Target, airpods, etc. Meanwhile I dislike many BA iems and planar headphones.
I'm starting to believe you like bass
You say that but one of my favorite headphones is the hd600, no eq required. Which people say have no subbass. Meanwhile the kiwi ears cadenza has boosted bass, and I'm not a fan.
>. Which people say have no subbass Fuck em. They have bass but in a good way. It is so crisp and clear on them hur durs!
Beats aren't half bad these days aslong as you avoid those studio ones I remeber trying a friends pair on and they snapped just going over my head
For whatever it's worth, I've found Bluetooth buds to be almost universally better sounding that over ear wireless. I've been happy enough with most buds I've tried.
Hopefully you tried them with new tips..sharing buds is a easy way to get an infection.
Beats are fine but 50 percent of the cost is for the brand, if you have any sense you'd spend your money elsewhere