Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Beats Tones Down the Bass With its New Solo2 Headphones

futbalguy said:
Why is it necessary to spend $1000s on nicer TVs, computers, houses, etc...? I haven't tried beats but I had some high end Sennheisers and a headphone amp for a while and it made some music absolutely magical, like you are in the room with the singer/band.

Also, $200 headphones certainly existed 5 years ago. This isn't some new concept even if you hadn't heard of it. Beats did popularize it for a lot of new people though. It really isn't that much money considering how much time people spend listening to music. I appreciate that people care about music enough to spend the money.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I fully get it that people have the right to spend that money if it is indeed a pursuit of quality. Heck, we Mac users deal with that perception regularly from the people who are content buying the cheapest PC box possible. And I know as well that these pricier options have existed for years, but I just always assumed that true audiophiles out there had fewer options and went to Best Buy/Circuit City (remember those?)/specialized audio stores to purchase them.

I guess the point I was trying to make/explore is...when did we reach the tipping point where you see these headphones everywhere now? One can walk into the local Target or Walmart, and there is a whole row of these $100+ headphones on display in the electronics section. I don't ever recall seeing it being that common in the big box stores like that. When did the "everyman" become the market for these headphones?
 
attila said:
Oh I do (but perhaps I understand too little about the acquisition itself).

That comment doesn't say at all if the Beats are now 'good', only 'better than before', and my own experience with Beats, both as headphones and laptop sound card, is that they turn up the bass and destroy the rest of the music. Fine if the one and only genre you listen to is rap/hiphop.
Click to expand...

"Sounding Better" is a matter of preference for a specific user. A good review gives you the necessary information to deduce on your own whether or not the product is right for you.

And quality "destroying" bass is NOT fine if the only genre you listen to is rap/hiphop. That comment shows your ignorance and personal bias.

----------
jarred125 said:
"Designed for Sound" ????

What kind of idiotic marketing is that? If it wasn't designed for sound before, what was it? A rock?
Click to expand...

I think the marketing is "Resolutionary"
 
D-Love said:
There are people that say, "Apple could make their own high-end headphones! Why do they need Beats?" The reason is this - Apple makes the "cool" products when it comes to computers/tablets/smart phones. This does not directly translate over to headphones. Beats makes up 65% of that market. Apple was NEVER going to beat that. By acquiring Beats, now Apple has that market as well. Instantly. Also, the music industry was never going to let Apple have a subscription music service. Again, now with Beats they have that. Plus, financially this deal pays for itself in 3 years. There is little about this acquisition that doesn't make sense, honestly.
Click to expand...

Again, this is mostly shareholder rationale. Why should an Apple consumer care about 65%? Why should an Apple consumer care if this pays for itself in X years? I think the whining is about wanting a next big thing from Apple that is not about fattening Apple's margins or laying claim to dominant market share as a primary benefit. Those holding stock can get right into such rationale. Those wanting something "wow" and "magical" to buy from Apple that is not just another iteration of something they already own from Apple are less excited.
 
JAT said:
Created what market?
Click to expand...
Beats created (or hugely expanded) the 'large over-ear headphone plugged into your phone or MP3 player and worn everywhere' market.

Sennheiser et al were players in the much smaller 'large over-ear headphone plugged into your $5k+ audiophile separates system listening to Mahler and The Velvet Underground on vinyl while drinking a fat Barolo in the twilight solitude of your gentleman's den' market.
 
dpfenninger said:
Call me crazy, but why is it necessary to spend hundreds of dollars for headphones? When did this become the trend? I get it that people want a quality listening experience, but the sheer number of these headphones on the market makes me wonder when this all happened.

If you had told me five years ago about a pair of $200 headphones, I would have said "good luck selling those," but it seems they're all over the place now, so apparently people buy them.

As for me, I'm quite content with my Apple earbuds, thank you. :)
Click to expand...

...and on top of that, the stupid kids listen to music via YouTube. Obviously crappy sound quality, but also bandwidth be damned apparently!

Little bastards.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Originally Posted by 2010mini View Post
Yet Beats hold 60% of the market and Sennheiser does not.

A great argument for shareholders. Since ________ sells the most, they are the best. That one is one of the defaults in Apple superiority too. Yet, Windows runs on more than 90% of all computers sold everywhere, but we won't argue that the Windows OS is superior to OS X. Android runs on more smart devices than iOS, but we won't use that one to argue Android is superior. Android smart phones outsell Apple phones but that doesn't make us argue for their superiority either. Etc.

Beats has done a GREAT job marketing what are typically rated as poor quality products such that they can get a lot of people to pay a lot for them. That is very impressive. I again think the backlash is that while shareholders can certainly appreciate that kind of benefit, the consumers want great quality products at a good price. "We" work pretty hard to rationalize all of Apple's products that way even though we know that Apple tacks on a pretty rich margin too. Beats though is not Apple and "we" are struggling with rationalizing this buy from a consumer (not a shareholders) point of view.
Click to expand...

Ok, this is fair and makes sense to me. Hopefully Apple can infuse some added quality into Beats hardware now that they are taking over design. But to be upset with this deal over sound quality of headphones is ignoring the bigger reason the deal is happening: Beats Music service (which is only 5 months old, but very well designed and has been a joy to use for me so far) + Jimmy Iovine's relationships in the industry. The headphone business just takes some of the risk out of paying for those 2 elements.
 
JAT said:
Projecting much? 0% of your post is accurate. You should be banned for this post.
Click to expand...

And how would you know 0% of his post is accurate? There is more evidence to support his comment than your baseless accusation.
 
AdonisSMU said:
People haven't actually used Beats they are just pilling on because subconsciously its a way for them to hate minorities without being direct about it. If Dr. Dre had no involvement with these head phones people would be talking about how great they are because of all the bass.

The tech world has become more overt in it's racist undertones. That's largely because black people have not been involved in the tech revolution as much as other minorities have.
Click to expand...

What a rediculous load of crap.
 
Sigma4Life said:
I also find it relevant and should be treated with the same respect of other Apple products. It's especially relevant today since Apple just announced the acquisition. I don't get the irrational hate for Beats.
Click to expand...

Where did I imply I hate beats? My post referred to not seeing the need for posts about every Beat products on the front page. There is a difference. What I don't like, be it on MR or the front page of WSJ.com is clutter. You don't find articles on the WSJ.com front page about, for example, the latest summer movie review from Sony Pictures unless it's relevant to Sony as a company.

Here on MR there aren't posts about everything iOS unless it's relatively newsworthy. The rest is reported on the iOS blog for those that want that level of detail. My point is that Beats should be treated the same way. Headlines and front page should be for bigger stuff than merely flacking product.

And there is nothing relevant about a Beats product that happens to be released the day after Apple announces the purchase b/c Apple wasn't involved with development. If this was the first product designed under Apple's ownership you'd have a point.
 
Strange that there is still no mention that Beats was basically started by Monster Cable with Dre and Iovine as partners. Then Dre and Iovine (mostly the later) basically thefted the company from Monster.
Moral of the story, no matter how friendly someone from LA seems, get a lawyer, always get a lawyer.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Where did I imply I hate beats? My post referred to not seeing the need for posts about every Beat products on the front page. There is a difference. What I don't like, be it on MR or the front page of WSJ.com is clutter. You don't find articles on the WSJ.com front page about, for example, the latest summer movie review from Sony Pictures unless it's relevant to Sony as a company.

Here on MR there aren't posts about everything iOS unless it's relatively newsworthy. The rest is reported on the iOS blog for those that want that level of detail. My point is that Beats should be treated the same way. Headlines and front page should be for bigger stuff than merely flacking product.

And there is nothing relevant about a Beats product that happens to be released the day after Apple announces the purchase b/c Apple wasn't involved with development. If this was the first product designed under Apple's ownership you'd have a point.
Click to expand...

The biggest acquisition in Apple's history was just announced. I want Beat's DNA in my news feed.

----------
calaverasgrande said:
Strange that there is still no mention that Beats was basically started by Monster Cable with Dre and Iovine as partners. Then Dre and Iovine (mostly the later) basically thefted the company from Monster.
Moral of the story, no matter how friendly someone from LA seems, get a lawyer, always get a lawyer.
Click to expand...

"Thefted"? Not a word. And it implies that music producers are supposed to create hardware. Try again?
 
I'm going to make this request early on in the hopes that it gets listened to.

Now and in the future, can we not report every little product that Beats releases? Or, at least move it to page 2.
 
Rogifan said:
Beats design house will no longer be working with the company.

http://www.ammunitiongroup.com/work/1922-2/

I think Apple should use Beats to create a downmarket sub-brand that has its own unique styling and that's maybe more colorful/fun than the Apple brand. Use the Beats brand to create a cheaper smartphone for emerging markets.
Click to expand...

seen others make the same point but beats already has people willing to pay well above the products worth. why change that? also is beats successful or as successful in emerging markets?
 
Aragornii said:
The consensus of the analysts seems to be this is a generally favorable, but not particularly big deal, for Apple.
Click to expand...

The consensus on this forum is that analysts get paid far too much to spout random predictions and pull figures out of their nether regions. History has shown that if an analyst says anything about Apple it's more likely to be wrong than right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back