Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by PAC, Nov 29, 2013.
My grandson let me use his headphones. All I can say is WOW!
I want some!
Yep, they're loads of fun. They might not be "accurate" in the ears of so called audiophiles, but they certainly do rock! Had a pair of earbuds for my mp3 player, loved 'em.
Guess you know what to put on your Christmas list now huh?
They're nice. But I rocked a pair of Beats and a pair of Bose side by side at a Sam's club, and the Bose was miles ahead. And a heck of a lot less.
There are tons of better headphones on the market. Beats are way overpriced for what you are getting.
Maybe if you're listening to them next to some cheap earbuds. If you're comfortable paying ridiculous amounts of money for what is, essentially, an average set of headphones with exaggerated bass response and a status logo, then they're for you!
Bose and beats are both over priced. Much better headphones out there for way cheaper.
AKG 240's. 100 bucks. Love them
I had no idea they were that expensive. All these kids walking around with headphones that expensive? Yowza.
I haven't heard them yet. About 8 years ago, I picked up some Sennheiser HD515s and they do the job at roughly 1/2 the price if I remember correctly.
I'll stay with my good old Sony MDR 7506 or MDR V600 sets, thanks. Both less expensive than Beats, more accurate, and comfortable to wear for hours.
If you are one of those that has the bass and treble cranked to 10 in your car... these "hyped" headphones are for you.
If you are wanting to hear an accurate playback (in the cans), do not use these p. o. s.
Beats are ALMOST as bad as skullcandy.
They sound great but not $200 to $300 great.
Apparently it was a tossup at the marketing department between naming them "Beats" or naming them "Douchecans". "Beats" won out - but only by a couple of votes.
There's something wrong with trying to
make crappy compressed MP3's sound
better with expensive headphones.
I have a pair of Sennheiser HD202s that were not that expensive but still a great pair of headphones for practice, on the train, in bed listening to music, etc. They're not the top-end, but still excellent value.
I received a free pair of Beats Solo on-ear headphones when I got a new mobile phone. They are a bit more boomy than the Sennheisers. I wouldn't have paid $200-$300 for them, but I do use them more because they are conveniently designed for travel (fold away, come with their own case to keep safe, can remove the cord and roll it up neatly, etc.). The Sennheisers can be a nuisance with their one-metre (or more?) cord, and can also be a bit flimsy (the over-ear bit keeps detaching from the headband on my set). The Beats are well-made and cleverly-designed, even if they don't have the absolute best quality sound you can possibly get in a pair of headphones - they're good enough for average non-audiophile user listening to MP3s.
I appreciate that there are better headphones out there for the money, but I got my Beats free and I've found them to be pretty useful for what they are.
OMG I want to be 13 again. Kids today got it made. His youngest brother, just turned 3, took over my iPod and knew how to use it. I'm impressed. But their dad is a techie.
Beats are horrible. iPhone earbuds are more accurate and sound better. Grab some Grado SR80s and be set for a third of the price.
These are not the buds. They are the pro over ear.
As far as ear buds go, the ones that come with the Sansa Clip are really good.
i love exaggerated bass & treble, so i would LOVE Beats! i actually have the "Monster Turbine" ear-buds that preceded the "Beats by Dre" and they pound.
BTW,.. accurate head-sets sound friggin BORING, so i leave them for people who actually require them for their profession.
Skullcandy headphones are like a quarter of the price though.
I wouldn't say either brand is bad unless you're an audiophile.
Beats, for the price you pay, could be better. Teens buy them because they're over hyped and look cool.