|
|
|
|
|
|
by stcredzero
4426 days ago
|
|
|
This is simply untrue. The best headphones, speakers, and amplifiers, are designed to faithfully reproduce the recorded signal. Have you seen the actual frequency response curves of headphones? They are by no means flat! They can approach flat from 20-20k, but there are always trade offs, at least until you get to certain price points. What is good or bad sound is largely subjective and socially conditioned. The expectations around binaural recordings of natural sound are very different from highly produced studio production. What is bad in one context is good in another and vice versa. And while I'd go for headphones with better frequency response, it's not the be-all end all measurement either. Then again, maybe Beats are a tragedy, since we are getting to a point technologically where every headphone could have reference class performance, if that is what the market wanted. That's not what the market wants. Maybe that's the real tragedy. |
|
|
Yes. And, as I said: Most cheap products accidentally fail at this goal.
It costs a bit of money to produce a quality transducer that is stable, reliably mass-produced, and lasts a long time. Not as much for headphones as for larger transducers, however. For $100 you can buy any of several models that are extremely accurate (compared to what $100 would buy you in speakers). Sennheiser, Shure, AKG, and Audio Technica all offer several models in the $50-$100 range that will destroy Beats offerings at even much higher price points.
Nonetheless, just because most people's cheap headphones suck doesn't mean that a company producing expensive headphones that suck should be given a pass. In a world with good products in a field I care about, why wouldn't I encourage people to choose them over a clearly inferior product? Beats is a demonstrably inferior product with good marketing.